ReviewConflict, collusion or collaboration in consultations about medically unexplained symptoms: The need for a curriculum of medical explanation
Section snippets
Introduction: scale and scope of the problem
Of patients presenting physical symptoms in primary care, their doctors consider that, in around 10–20%, the symptoms are not explained by physical disease [1], [2], [3]. In outpatient clinics, such as gynaecology, neurology or rheumatology, 30–70% of patients have no physical disease [4], [5], [6]. These symptoms burden patients, whose quality of life can be as poor as in patients with chronic physical diseases [5], [7], [8], and they burden health services because, despite the absence of
Consultation is part of the problem
A history of childhood abuse and associated family dysfunction, a history of illness focus in the family, and unexplained symptoms in parents are each more likely in patients with MUS than in those with physically explained symptoms [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. However, these adversities afflict many people who do not develop MUS, and include risk factors for other clinical problems, such as depression or alcohol abuse. So a purely ‘psychosomatic’ framework is incomplete. ‘Sociosomatics’
Contesting patients’ and doctors’ agendas in consultation
In several studies of patients’ perspective on consultation, one overwhelming finding emerges strongly. Patients seek legitimacy for their problems [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. That is, they want to feel that the doctor accepts that the symptoms are real and warrant the doctor's attention. The complaints and compliments with which patients describe their doctors are particularly informative about what they have sought from them. In a study of 68 patients, none complained
Collusion and collaboration
One way in which doctors can conduct consultations on common ground with the patient is simply to accept explanations or treatment suggestions that patients provide [60]. However, patients’ suggestions of explanations generally appear tentative and are probably intended as a way to prompt the doctor's explanation rather than impose one [40], [52], [61]. Acquiescence can therefore undermine patients’ confidence in their doctors’ expertise [60]. Moreover, it risks negating doctors’ responsibility
Crafting explanations for MUS
There is, however, an obvious paradox in arguing that doctors should provide explanations for a problem that is defined as unexplained; so criticising doctors where they neglect explanation in these consultations would be illogical. Instead, our analysis has brought us back to the starting point for this paper: that these symptoms do not fit Western medicine's ways of understanding illness and so cannot typically be explained in the ways that doctors have been trained to explain symptoms [14].
Practice implications: a curriculum of ‘medical explanation’
For medicine and associated disciplines, MUS is a ‘disconfirming case’; that is, a problem that, by definition, does not fit into current ways of explaining symptoms. In research design, disconfirming cases are recognised as a way to learn, not just about those cases, but about the limitations of the theoretical frameworks that they do not fit [107]. Therefore, by examining some of the decisions that a practitioner has to make in crafting an explanation for a ‘medically unexplained physical
References (112)
- et al.
Medically unexplained physical symptoms in primary care: a comparison of self-report screening questionnaires and clinical opinion
J Psychosom Res
(1997) - et al.
The somatising effect of clinical consultation: What patients and doctors say and do not say when patients present medically unexplained physical symptoms
Soc Sci Med
(2005) - et al.
Medically unexplained symptoms: an epidemiological study in seven specialities
J Psychosom Res
(2001) - et al.
Listening to patients with unexplained menstrual symptoms: what do they tell the gynaecologist?
BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol
(2002) Surgery and medical treatment in persistent somatizing patients
J Psychosom Res
(1992)- et al.
Common symptoms in ambulatory care: incidence, evaluation, therapy, and outcome
Am J Med
(1989) - et al.
Unexplained symptoms in primary care: perspectives of doctors and patients
Gen Hosp Psychiat
(2000) - et al.
How many functional somatic syndromes?
J Psychosom Res
(2001) - et al.
Functional somatic syndromes: one or many?
Lancet
(1999) - et al.
Somatic presentations of psychiatric illness in primary care setting
J Psychosom Res
(1988)