↓ Skip to main content

Improving GP communication in consultations on medically unexplained symptoms: a qualitative interview study with patients in primary care

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
33 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Improving GP communication in consultations on medically unexplained symptoms: a qualitative interview study with patients in primary care
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, August 2017
DOI 10.3399/bjgp17x692537
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juul Houwen, Peter Lbj Lucassen, Hugo W Stappers, Willem Jj Assendelft, Sandra van Dulmen, Tim C Olde Hartman

Abstract

Many GPs find the care of patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) challenging. Patients themselves are often not satisfied with the care they receive. To explore the problems patients with MUS experience in communication during consultations, with the aim of improving such consultations DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews. GP consultations were videorecorded and the GPs were asked immediately afterwards whether MUS were presented. Patients in these MUS consultations were asked to reflect on the consultation in a semi-structured interview while watching a recording of their own consultation. Of the 393 videorecorded consultations, 43 contained MUS. Patients who did identified six categories of problems. First, they reported a mismatch between the GP's and their own agenda. Second, patients indicated that the GP evoked an uncomfortable feeling in them during the consultation. Third, they found that GPs did not provide a specific management plan for their symptoms. Fourth, patients indicated that the GP was not well prepared for the consultation. Fifth, they perceived prejudices in the GP during the consultation. Finally, one patient found that the GP did not acknowledge a limited understanding of the origin of the symptoms. According to patients, GPs can improve their consultations on MUS by making genuine contact with their patients, by paying more attention to the patient's agenda, and by avoiding evoking uncomfortable feelings and displaying prejudices. They should prepare their consultations and focus on the issues that matter to patients, for example, symptom management. GPs should be honest to patients when they do not understand the origin of symptoms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Researcher 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 3 4%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 31 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 28%
Psychology 8 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 31 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 October 2017.
All research outputs
#1,915,562
of 25,235,400 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#928
of 4,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,218
of 322,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#35
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,235,400 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,674 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,320 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.