BACKGROUND: In reattribution, general practitioners (GPs) request psychosocial information directly and explain medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) using psychosocial information in the consultation. We explored whether reattribution training (RT) increased the communication of psychosocial information and decreased communication about somatic intervention between GPs and their MUS patients. METHOD: A cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) of RT versus usual treatment in GPs from 16 practices and 141 patients with MUS on audio-recorded and transcribed doctor-patient communication in an index consultation. In a secondary data analysis, the Liverpool Clinical Interaction Analysis Scheme (LCIAS) was applied by an experienced rater to each turn of speech in the transcript from the index consultation blind to treatment allocation. RESULTS: After RT, patients were more likely to disclose and discuss psychosocial problems, and propose psychosocial explanations for symptoms; around 25% of patients discussed psychosocial information extensively. In the RT group, GPs did not seek new psychosocial disclosure but they reduced advocacy for somatic intervention. After RT, GPs suggested, on average, two utterances of psychosocial explanation and six utterances of somatic intervention. CONCLUSIONS: After RT, some patients discussed psychosocial issues extensively but GPs did not probe underlying psychosocial issues. They gave mixed psychosocial and somatic messages about MUS, which may have increased patients' concerns about their health. GPs should actively seek the disclosure of underlying psychosocial problems and give clear, unambiguous messages to MUS patients when they are willing to discuss psychosocial issues.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: In reattribution, general practitioners (GPs) request psychosocial information directly and explain medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) using psychosocial information in the consultation. We explored whether reattribution training (RT) increased the communication of psychosocial information and decreased communication about somatic intervention between GPs and their MUS patients. METHOD: A cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) of RT versus usual treatment in GPs from 16 practices and 141 patients with MUS on audio-recorded and transcribed doctor-patient communication in an index consultation. In a secondary data analysis, the Liverpool Clinical Interaction Analysis Scheme (LCIAS) was applied by an experienced rater to each turn of speech in the transcript from the index consultation blind to treatment allocation. RESULTS: After RT, patients were more likely to disclose and discuss psychosocial problems, and propose psychosocial explanations for symptoms; around 25% of patients discussed psychosocial information extensively. In the RT group, GPs did not seek new psychosocial disclosure but they reduced advocacy for somatic intervention. After RT, GPs suggested, on average, two utterances of psychosocial explanation and six utterances of somatic intervention. CONCLUSIONS: After RT, some patients discussed psychosocial issues extensively but GPs did not probe underlying psychosocial issues. They gave mixed psychosocial and somatic messages about MUS, which may have increased patients' concerns about their health. GPs should actively seek the disclosure of underlying psychosocial problems and give clear, unambiguous messages to MUS patients when they are willing to discuss psychosocial issues.
Authors: Joanna Leaviss; Sarah Davis; Shijie Ren; Jean Hamilton; Alison Scope; Andrew Booth; Anthea Sutton; Glenys Parry; Marta Buszewicz; Rona Moss-Morris; Peter White Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 4.014