You only have one chance for a first impression! Impact of Patients' First Impression on the Global Quality Assessment of Doctors' Communication Approach.

Patients' first impressions obtained during early contacts with doctors represent the basis for relationship building processes. Aim of this study was to verify how patients' first impression of doctors' communication approach influences patients' global assessment of doctors' performance. This cross-sectional study was part of a larger, multicenter observational study aiming to assess lay-people's preferences regarding patient-doctor communication. All participants (N = 136) were equally distributed over two selected Italian and Dutch recruitment centers as well as for gender and age. In each center, panels of 6-9 persons each watched the same set of eight videotaped Objective Structured Clinical Examination consultations. Participants performed different tasks as to pick up salient communication elements while watching the videos and to rate doctors' global communicative performances on a 10-point Likert scale. We performed a mediation analysis to assess direct and indirect effects of participants' first impression on participants' global assessment. Among the 439 collected first impressions, 284(65%) were positive. When the first impression was positive, the mean value of the global assessment of doctors' performance was significantly higher (M = 7.4, SD = 1.5) than when the first impression was negative (M = 6.0, SD = 1.6); t(437) = 9.0 p < .001. According to the mediation analysis, this difference was due to a direct (c' = 0.53) and an indirect effect (ab = 0.86) deriving from the total effect of first impressions on the global assessment of doctors' performances (c = 1.39). In conclusion, the first impression has a strong impact on positive and negative judgments on doctors' communication approach and may facilitate or inhibit all further interactions.

The effectiveness of shared decision-making followed by positive reinforcement on physical disability in the long-term follow-up of patients with nonspecific low back pain in primary care: a clustered randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although the recovery of patients suffering from low back pain is highly context dependent, patient preferences about treatment options are seldom incorporated into the therapeutic plan. Shared decision-making (SDM) offers a tool to overcome this deficiency. The reinforcement by the general practitioner (GP) of a 'shared' chosen therapy might increase patients' expectations of favourable outcomes and thus contribute to recovery. METHODS: In the Netherlands, a clustered randomised controlled trial was performed to assess the effectiveness of shared decision-making followed by positive reinforcement of the chosen therapy (SDM&PR) on patient-related clinical outcomes. Overall, 68 GPs included 226 patients visiting their GP for a new episode of non-chronic low back pain. GPs in the intervention group were trained in implementing SDM&PR using a structured training programme with a focus on patient preferences in reaching treatment decisions. GPs in the control group provided care as usual. The primary outcome was the change in physical disability measured with the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire (RMD) during the six-month follow-up after the first consultation. Physical disability (RMD), pain, adequate relief, absenteeism and healthcare consumption at 2, 6, 12 and 26 weeks were secondary outcomes. A multivariate analysis with a mixed model was used to estimate the differences in outcomes. RESULTS: Of the patients in the intervention and the control groups, 66 and 62%, respectively, completed the follow-up. Most patients (77%) recovered to no functional restrictions due to back pain within 26 weeks. No significant differences in the mean scores for any outcome were observed between intervention patients and controls during the follow-up, and in multivariate analysis, there was no significant difference in the main outcome during the six-month follow-up. Patients in the intervention group reported more involvement in decision-making. CONCLUSION: This study did not detect any improvement in clinical outcome or in health care consumption of patients with non-chronic low back pain after the training of GPs in SDM&PR. The implementation of SDM merely introduces task-oriented communication. The training of the GPs may have been more effective if it had focused more on patient-oriented communication techniques and on stressing the expectation of favourable outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR) number: NTR1960. The trial was registered in the NTR on August 20, 2009.

Which patient and doctor behaviours make a medical consultation more effective from a patient point of view. Results from a European multicentre study in 31 countries.

OBJECTIVE: To assess European patients' preferences regarding seven aspects of doctor-patient communication. METHODS: 6049 patients from 31 European countries evaluated 21 doctor and 12 patient behaviours, through a patient-generated questionnaire (PCVq). Multilevel models explored the effects of patient characteristics, contextual and cultural dimensions on preferences. RESULTS: Patients attributed more responsibility to doctors, by giving greater importance to doctor than to patient factors, in particular to Treating the patient as a partner and as a person and Continuity of care. Gender, age, education, the presence of chronic illness and two of Hofstede's cultural dimensions, Individualism and Indulgence, showed differential evaluations among patients. Women gave greater importance to all seven communication aspects, older patients to being prepared for the consultation, lower educated patients to Treating patient as a person and Thoughtful planning. Patients from countries with an indulgent background rated all seven communication aspects of greater importance. A more individualistic orientation was related to lower importance regarding the four doctor's factors and the patient factor Open and Honest. CONCLUSIONS: Treating the patient as a person and providing continuity of care emerged as universal values. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The findings should represent a landmark for the adaptation of patient-generated communication guidelines and programs in Europe.

Empathy in general practice-the gap between wishes and reality: comparing the views of patients and physicians.

Background: Empathy is regarded by patients and general practitioners (GPs) as fundamental in patient-GP communication. Patients do not always experience empathy and GPs encounter circumstances which hamper applying it. Objective: To explore why receiving and offering empathy during the encounter in general practice does not always meet the wishes of both patients and GPs. Method: A qualitative research method, based on focus group interviews with patients and in-depth interviews with GPs, was carried out. Within the research process, iterative data collection and analysis were applied. Results: Both patients and GPs perceive a gap between what they wish for with regard to empathy, and what they actually encounter in general practice. Patients report on circumstances which hamper receiving empathy and GPs on circumstances offering it. Various obstacles were mentioned: (i) circumstances related to practice organization, (ii) circumstances related to patient-GP communication or connectedness, (iii) differences between the patient's and the GP's expectations, (iv) time pressure and its causes and (v) the GP's individual capability to offer empathy. Conclusion: When patients do not receive empathy from their GP or practice staff, they feel frustrated. This causes a gap between their expectations on the one hand and their actual experiences on the other. GPs generally want to incorporate empathy; the GP's private, professional and psychological well-being appears to be an important contributing factor in practicing empathy in daily practice. But they encounter various obstacles to offer this. It is up to GPs to take responsibility for showing practice members the importance of an appropriate empathical behaviour towards patients.

Examining the effects of enhanced provider-patient communication on postoperative tonsillectomy pain: protocol of a randomised controlled trial performed by nurses in daily clinical care.

INTRODUCTION: Placebo effects (true biopsychological effects not attributable to the active ingredients of medical technical interventions) can be attributed to several mechanisms, such as expectancy manipulation and empathy manipulation elicited by a provider's communication. So far, effects have primarily been shown in laboratory settings. The aim of this study is to determine the separate and combined effects of expectancy manipulation and empathy manipulation during preoperative and postoperative tonsillectomy analgesia care on clinical adult patients' outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using a two-by-two randomised controlled trial, 128 adult tonsillectomy patients will be randomly assigned to one out of four conditions differing in the level of expectancy manipulation (standard vs enhanced) and empathy manipulation (standard vs enhanced). Day care ward nurses are trained to deliver the intervention, while patients are treated via the standard analgesia protocol and hospital routines. The primary outcome, perceived pain, is measured via hospital routine by a Numeric Rating Scale, and additional prehospitalisation, perihospitalisation and posthospitalisation questionnaires are completed (until day 3, ie, 2 days after the operation). The manipulation is checked using audio recordings of nurse-patient interactions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Although communication is manipulated, the manipulations do not cross norms or values of acceptable behaviour. Standard medical care is provided. The ethical committee of the UMC Utrecht and the local OLVG hospital committee approved the study. Results will be published via (inter)national peer-reviewed journals and a lay publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR5994; Pre-results.

Specifying the effects of physician's communication on patients' outcomes: A randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To experimentally test the effects of physician's affect-oriented communication and inducing expectations on outcomes in patients with menstrual pain. METHODS: Using a 2×2 RCT design, four videotaped simulated medical consultations were used, depicting a physician and a patient with menstrual pain. In the videos, two elements of physician's communication were manipulated: (1) affect-oriented communication (positive: warm, emphatic; versus negative: cold, formal), and (2) outcome expectation induction (positive versus uncertain). Participants (293 women with menstrual pain), acting as analogue patients, viewed one of the four videos. Pre- and post video participants' outcomes (anxiety, mood, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and satisfaction) were assessed. RESULTS: Positive affect-oriented communication reduced anxiety (p<0.001), negative mood (p=0.001), and increased satisfaction (p<0.001) compared to negative affect-oriented communication. Positive expectations increased feelings of self-efficacy (p<0.001) and outcome expectancies (p<0.001), compared to uncertain expectations, but did not reduce anxiety. The combination of positive affect-oriented communication and a positive expectation reduced anxiety (p=0.02), increased outcome expectancies (p=0.01) and satisfaction (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: Being empathic and inducing positive expectations have distinct and combined effects, demonstrating that both are needed to influence patients' outcomes for the best. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Continued medical training is needed to harness placebo-effects of medical communication into practice.

Perspectives, preferences and needs regarding early prediction of preeclampsia in Dutch pregnant women: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: To improve early risk-identification in pregnancy, research on prediction models for common pregnancy complications is ongoing. Therefore, it was the aim of this study to explore pregnant women's perceptions, preferences and needs regarding prediction models for first trimester screening for common pregnancy complications, such as preeclampsia, to support future implementation. METHOD: Ten focus groups (of which five with primiparous and five with multiparous women) were conducted (n = 45). Six focus groups were conducted in urban regions and four in rural regions. All focus group discussions were audio taped and NVIVO was used in order to facilitate the thematic analysis conducted by the researchers. RESULTS: Women in this study had a positive attitude towards first trimester screening for preeclampsia using prediction models. Reassurance when determined as low-risk was a major need for using the test. Self-monitoring, early recognition and intensive monitoring were considered benefits of using prediction models in case of a high-risk. Women acknowledged that high-risk determination could cause (unnecessary) anxiety, but it was expected that personal and professional interventions would level out this anxiety. CONCLUSION: Women in this study had positive attitudes towards preeclampsia screening. Self-monitoring, together with increased alertness of healthcare professionals, would enable them to take active actions to improve pregnancy outcomes. This attitude enhances the opportunities for prevention, early recognition and treatment of preeclampsia and probably other adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Consequences of the presence and absence of empathy during consultations in primary care: A focus group study with patients.

OBJECTIVE: There is general consensus that explicit expression of empathy in patient-GP communication is highly valued. Yet, little is known so far about patients' personal experiences with and expectations of empathy. Insight into these experiences and expectations can help to achieve more person-centeredness in GP practice care. METHODS: Participants were recruited by a press report in local newspapers. INCLUSION CRITERIA: adults, a visit to the GP in the previous year. Exclusion criterion: a formal complaint procedure. Five focus groups were conducted. The discussions were analyzed using constant comparative analysis. RESULTS: In total 28 participants took part in the focus group interviews. Three themes were identified: (1) Personalized care and enablement when empathy is present; (2) Frustrations when empathy is absent; (3) Potential pitfalls of empathy. Participants indicated that empathy helps build a more personal relationship and makes them feel welcome and at ease. Furthermore, empathy makes them feel supported and enabled. A lack of empathy can result in avoiding a visit to the GP. CONCLUSION: Empathy is perceived as an important attribute of patient-GP communication. Its presence results in feelings of satisfaction, relief and trust. Furthermore, it supports patients, resulting in new coping strategies. A lack of empathy causes feelings of frustration and disappointment and can lead to patients avoiding visiting their GP. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: More explicit attention should be given to empathy during medical education in general and during vocational GP-training.

Managing barriers to empathy in the clinical encounter: a qualitative interview study with GPs.

BACKGROUND: Current daily general practice has become increasingly technical and somatically oriented (where attention to patients' feelings is decreased) due to an increase in protocol-based guidelines. Priorities in GP-patient communication have shifted from a focus on listening and empathy to task-oriented communication. AIM: To explore what barriers GPs experience when applying empathy in daily practice, and how these barriers are managed. DESIGN AND SETTING: Thirty Dutch GPs with sufficient heterogeneity in sex, age, type of practice, and rural or urban setting were interviewed. METHOD: The consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) were applied. The verbatim transcripts were then analysed. RESULTS: According to participating GPs, the current emphasis on protocol-driven care can be a significant barrier to genuineness in communication. Other potential barriers mentioned were time pressures and constraints, and dealing with patients displaying 'unruly behaviour' or those with personality disorders. GPs indicated that it can be difficult to balance emotional involvement and professional distance. Longer consulting times, smaller practice populations, and efficient practice organisation were described as practical solutions. In order to focus on a patient-as-person approach, GPs strongly suggested that deviating from guidelines should be possible when necessary as an element of good-quality care. Joining intercollegiate counselling groups was also discussed. CONCLUSION: In addition to practical solutions for barriers to behaving empathically, GPs indicated that they needed more freedom to balance working with protocols and guidelines, as well as a patient-as-person and patient-as-partner approach. This balance is necessary to remain connected with patients and to deliver care that is truly personal.

Reasons for accepting or declining Down syndrome screening in Dutch prospective mothers within the context of national policy and healthcare system characteristics: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Uptake rates for Down syndrome screening in the Netherlands are low compared to other European countries. To investigate the low uptake, we explored women's reasons for participation and possible influences of national healthcare system characteristics. Dutch prenatal care is characterised by an approach aimed at a low degree of medicalisation, with pregnant women initially considered to be at low risk. Prenatal screening for Down syndrome is offered to all women, with a 'right not to know' for women who do not want to be informed on this screening. At the time this study was performed, the test was not reimbursed for women aged 35 and younger. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study to explore reasons for participation and possible influences of healthcare system characteristics. Data were collected via ten semi-structured focus groups with women declining or accepting the offer of Down syndrome screening (n = 46). All focus groups were audio- and videotaped, transcribed verbatim, coded and content analysed. RESULTS: Women declining Down syndrome screening did not consider Down syndrome a condition severe enough to justify termination of pregnancy. Young women declining felt supported in their decision by perceived confirmation of their obstetric caregiver and reassured by system characteristics (costs and age restriction). Women accepting Down syndrome screening mainly wanted to be reassured or be prepared to care for a child with Down syndrome. By weighing up the pros and cons of testing, obstetric caregivers supported young women who accepted in the decision-making process. This was helpful, although some felt the need to defend their decision to accept the test offer due to their young age. For some young women accepting testing, costs were considered a disincentive to participate. CONCLUSIONS: Presentation of prenatal screening affects how the offer is attended to, perceived and utilised. By offering screening with age restriction and additional costs, declining is considered the preferred choice, which might account for low Dutch uptake rates. Autonomous and informed decision-making in Down syndrome screening should be based on the personal interest in knowing the individual risk of having a child with Down syndrome and system characteristics should not influence participation.

How patients would like to improve medical consultations: Insights from a multicentre European study.

OBJECTIVE: In a previous qualitative study (GULiVer-I), a series of lay-people derived recommendations ('tips') was listed for doctor and patient on 'How to make medical consultation more effective from the patient's perspective'. This work (GULiVer-II) aims to find evidence whether these tips can be generally applied, by using a quantitative approach, which is grounded in the previous qualitative study. METHODS: The study design is based on a sequential mixed method approach. 798 patients, representing United Kingdom, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands, were invited to assess on four point Likert scales the importance of the GULiVer-I tips listed in the 'Patient Consultation Values questionnaire'. RESULTS: All tips for the doctor and the patient were considered as (very) important by the majority of the participants. Doctors' and patients' contributions to communicate honestly, treatment and time management were considered as equally important (65, 71 and 58% respectively); whereas the contribution of doctors to the course and content of the consultation was seen as more important than that of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The relevance of GULiVer-I tips is confirmed, but tips for doctors were assessed as more important than those for patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Doctors and patients should pay attention to these "tips" in order to have an effective medical consultation.

How do national cultures influence lay people's preferences toward doctors' style of communication? A comparison of 35 focus groups from an European cross national research.

BACKGROUND: The evidence that inspires and fosters communication skills, teaching programmes and clinical recommendations are often based on national studies which assume, implicitly, that patients' preferences towards doctors' communication style are not significantly affected by their cultural background. The cross-cultural validity of national results has been recognized as a potential limitation on how generally applicable they are in a wider context. Using 35 country-specific focus group discussions from four European countries, the aim of the present study is to test whether or not national cultures influence lay people's preferences towards doctors' style of communication. METHODS: Lay people preferences on doctor's communication style have been collected in Belgium, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Italy. Each centre organized between eight and nine focus groups, where participants (n = 259) were asked to comment on a video of a simulated medical interview. The discussions were audiotaped, transcribed and coded using a common framework (Guliver Coding System) that allowed for the identification of different themes. RESULTS: The frequency distribution of the topics discussed highlights lay people's generally positive views towards most part of doctors interventions. The regression model applied to the Guliver categories highlighted slight national differences and the existence of a cross-cultural appreciation, in particular, of five types of intervention: Doctors attitudes (both Task-Oriented and Affective/Emotional), Summarizing, Structuring and Providing solution. CONCLUSION: Lay panels valued doctors' communication style in a similar manner in the countries selected. This highlights the existence of a common background, which in the process of internationalization of heath care, might foster the implementation of cross-national teaching programmes and clinical guidelines.

Changes in general practitioners' sensitivity to patients' distress in low back pain consultations.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to study GPs' sensitivity to patients' distress and communication on psychosocial factors prior to and after the introduction of the clinical guideline for low back pain. METHODS: Consultations from previous studies on doctor-patient communication in the Netherlands were available for secondary analyses. We selected consultations in which patients presented low back pain complaints (N=168; 25 from 1989, 6 from 1995, 116 from 2001, 21 from 2008) and analyzed these consultations using the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS) and the Verona Coding Definitions of Emotional Sequences (VR-CoDES). RESULTS: GPs more often acknowledged psychosocial factors during consultations after implementation of the guideline for non-specific low back pain. Moreover, patients more often voiced their worries, while GPs put more emphasis on providing biomedical information and counseling during these consultations. CONCLUSIONS: GPs tend to emphasize biomedical factors rather than supporting their patients emotionally. Patients are likely to voice their worries implicitly, indicating they have a need for emotional support from their GPs. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: GPs now face the challenge of not only recognizing psychosocial aspects during consultations with low back pain, but also actively eliciting concerns regarding these psychosocial aspects.

Determinants of first trimester combined test participation within the central region of the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective is to study the association between potentially influential determinants and first-trimester combined test (FCT) uptake rates in the central region of the Netherlands. METHODS: Data were extracted from the national prenatal screening database Peridos and the Netherlands Perinatal Registry and compared at the level of the health care provider. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analysis was used to determine the effect of determinants (maternal age, parity, socio-economic status (SES), mode of conception, ethnicity and urbanisation) on uptake. RESULTS: Prenatal screening data were available for 24 657 women and overall uptake rate was 25.7%. The strongest association with FCT uptake was found for advanced maternal age (ß 2.2; 95% CI [1.7, 2.8]). Grand multiparity had a significantly negative association with FCT uptake (ß -4.3; 95% CI [-5.9, -2.7]). Positive associations were found for very high urbanisation (ß 0.3; 95% CI [0.1, 0.4]) and high SES (ß 0.2; 95% CI [0.0, 0.3]). CONCLUSION: Advanced maternal age is strongly associated with participation in prenatal testing. The role of age related risk perception should be incorporated in future policy making to support women in informed and autonomous decision making. The negative association of grand multiparity and FCT might be religion based but requires further research. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Empathy: what does it mean for GPs? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Research has highlighted empathy as an important and effective factor in patient-physician communication. GPs have extensive practical experience with empathy. However, little is known about the personal views of GPs regarding the meaning and application of empathy in daily practice. OBJECTIVES: To explore GP's experiences and the application of empathy in daily practice and to investigate the practical use of empathy. Facts such as preconditions, barriers and facilitating possibilities are described. METHODS: Qualitative interview study; 30 in-depth interviews were performed between June 2012 and January 2013 with a heterogeneous sample of Dutch GPs. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim; content analysis was performed with the help of ATLAS-ti. RESULTS: Empathy was seen as an important quality-increasing element during the patient-GP consultation. The application of non-verbal and verbal techniques was described. Attention to cues and references to previous consults were reported separately. Required preconditions were: being physically and mentally fit, feeling no time pressure and having an efficient practice organization. Not feeling connected to the patient and strict medical guidelines and protocols were identified as obstacles. A key consideration was the positive contribution of empathy to job satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: The opinions of GPs in this research can be considered as supplementing and strengthening the findings of previous researches. The GPs in this study discussed, in particular, ideas important to the facilitation of empathy. These included: longer consultations, smaller practices, efficient telephonic triage by practice assistants, using intervision to help reflect on their work and drawing financiers' attention to the effectiveness of empathy.

Quality of doctor-patient communication through the eyes of the patient: variation according to the patient's educational level.

Good doctor-patient communication may lead to better compliance, higher patient satisfaction, and finally, better health. Although the social variance in how physicians and patients communicate is clearly demonstrated, little is known about what patients with different educational attainments actually prefer in doctor-patient communication. In this study we describe patients' perspective in doctor-patient communication according to their educational level, and to what extent these perspectives lean towards the expert opinion on doctor-patient communication. In a multi-center study (Belgium, The Netherlands, UK and Italy), focus group discussions were organised using videotaped medical consultations. A mixed methods approach was used to analyse the data. Firstly, a difference in perspective in communication style was found between the lower educated participants versus the middle and higher educated participants. Secondly, lower educated participants referred positively most to aspects related to the affective/emotional area of the medical consultation, followed by the task-oriented/problem-focused area. Middle and higher educated participants positively referred most to the task-oriented/problem-focused area. The competency of the physician was an important category of communication for all participants, independent of social background. The results indicate that the preferences of lower educated participants lean more towards the expert opinion in doctor-patient communication than the middle and higher educated participants. Patients' educational level seems to influence their perspective on communication style and should be taken into account by physicians. Further quantitative research is needed to confirm these results.

What do people appreciate in physicians' communication? An international study with focus groups using videotaped medical consultations.

BACKGROUND: The literature shows that the quality of communication is usually determined from a professional perspective. Patients or lay people are seldom involved in the development of quality indicators or communication. OBJECTIVE: To give voice to the lay people perspective on what constitutes 'good communication' by evoking their reactions to variations in physician communication. DESIGN: Lay people from four different countries watched the same videotaped standardized medical encounters and discussed their preferences in gender-specific focus groups who were balanced in age groups. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and fifty-nine lay people (64 NL, 72 IT, 75 UK and 48 BE) distributed over 35 focus groups of 6-8 persons each. MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED: Comments on doctors' behaviours were classified by the GULiVer framework in terms of contents and preferences. RESULTS: Participants prevalently discussed 'task-oriented expressions' (39%: competency, self-confident, providing solutions), 'affective oriented/emotional expressions' (25%: empathy, listening, reassuring) and 'process-oriented expressions' (23%: flexibility, summarizing, verifying). 'Showing an affective attitude' was most appreciated (positive percentage within category: 93%, particularly facilitations and inviting attitude), followed by 'providing solution' (85%). Among disfavoured behaviour, repetitions (88%), 'writing and reading' (54%) and asking permission (42%) were found. CONCLUSIONS: Although an affective attitude is appreciated by nearly everybody, people may vary widely in their communication needs and preferences: what is 'good communication' for one person may be disliked or even a source of irritation for another. A physician should be flexible and capable of adapting the consultation to the different needs of different patients. This challenges the idea of general communication guidelines.

Concerns voiced by patients and GPs' responses during psychosocial visits in primary care: a historical cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: In a recent study comparing psychosocial consultations prior to and after the implementation of national clinical guidelines in the Netherlands, we found that general practitioners (GPs) showed less empathy in the more recent consultations. As a consequence, patients possibly have less scope to express their worries. The objective is to investigate whether patients have become more reluctant to open up about their concerns during psychosocial consultations and how GPs respond. METHODS: Consultations from previous study samples videotaped between 1977 and 2008 and categorized by GPs as 'completely psychosocial' were selected for the present study. These consultations were observed using the Verona Coding Definitions of Emotional Sequences (VR-CoDES) to capture cues and concerns expressed by patients and GPs' immediate responses. We compared consultations prior to (N = 121) and after (N = 391) introduction of national clinical guidelines in the 1990s. RESULTS: In 92% of the consultations, patients presented at least one worry. These were most often expressed implicitly. However, the proportion of consultations containing at least one explicit concern changed from 24% to 37% over time. The increased number of expressed cues and concerns was partly explained by a change in GP characteristics; the latter sample contained more female and more experienced GPs. Furthermore, cues and concerns were more often expressed during later phases of consultations in recent years. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that patients have become somewhat more explicit in expressing their worries. However, GPs need to be aware that, still, most worries are expressed implicitly and that new concerns may appear towards the end of consultations.