Evidence Hub

Challenging history taking encounters: a systematic review, meta-analysis and phenomenological framework

Hossain S, Murray K, Zhang L, Jassem AM, Clarke J, Somers J, Dias R, Uridge A et al.

BMJ open, 2026

22 participants

Abstract

Objectives: All physicians will experience challenging history taking encounters, where communication is impaired and negatively impacts the diagnostic process. The aims of this systematic review were to (1) undertake a meta-analysis of the frequency of challenging encounters; (2) collate adverse outcomes of challenging encounters; (3) identify underlying causes of challenging encounters; (4) identify strategies to deal with different challenges; and (5) align these strategies with our published phenomenological framework of history taking challenges.

Design: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence data adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses and the Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines.

Data sources: A literature search in MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases was performed on 12 July 2020, and updated on 4 August 2025, focusing on challenging history taking encounters in any clinical setting.

Eligibility criteria: Articles reporting on the frequency, adverse outcomes, causative factors or strategies used to address challenges in the history taking process in any clinical area of medicine.

Data extraction and synthesis: Factors associated with challenging history encounters (causative or consequential) were categorised using inductive coding and referenced to a phenomenological framework. Meta-analysis was used to estimate the prevalence of history taking encounters using a…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 22 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free