↓ Skip to main content

Recognition of patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms by family physicians: results of a focus group study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Primary Care, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 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
Recognition of patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms by family physicians: results of a focus group study
Published in
BMC Primary Care, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12875-016-0451-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Madelon den Boeft, Danielle Huisman, Johannes C. van der Wouden, Mattijs E. Numans, Henriette E. van der Horst, Peter L. Lucassen, Tim C. olde Hartman

Abstract

Patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) form a heterogeneous group and frequently attend their family physician (FP). Little is known about how FPs recognize MUPS in their patients. We conducted a focus group study to explore how FPs recognize MUPS and whether they recognize specific subgroups of patients with MUPS. Targeting such subgroups might improve treatment outcomes. Six focus groups were conducted with in total 29 Dutch FPs. Two researchers independently analysed the data applying the principles of constant comparative analysis in order to detect characteristics to recognize MUPS and to synthesize subgroups. FPs take into account various characteristics when recognizing MUPS in their patients. More objective characteristics were multiple MUPS, frequent and long consultations and many referrals. Subjective characteristics were negative feelings towards patients and the feeling that the FP cannot make sense of the patient's story. Experience of the FP, affinity with MUPS, consultation skills, knowledge of the patient's context and the doctor-patient relationship seemed to influence how and to what extent these characteristics play a role. Based on the perceptions of the FPs we were able to distinguish five subgroups of patients according to FPs: 1) the anxious MUPS patient, 2) the unhappy MUPS patient, 3) the passive MUPS patient, 4) the distressed MUPS patient, and 5) the puzzled MUPS patient. These subgroups were not mutually exclusive, but were based on how explicit and predominant certain characteristics were perceived by FPs. FPs believe that they can properly identify MUPS in their patients during consultations and five distinct subgroups of patients could be distinguished. If these subgroups can be confirmed in further research, personalized treatment strategies can be developed and tested for their effectiveness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 7%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 17 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 33%
Psychology 12 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 19 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 February 2019.
All research outputs
#8,474,955
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#1,118
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,047
of 326,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#18
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 326,216 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.