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

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 restricted maximum likelihood model with τ 2 and I 2 as tests for heterogeneity and funnel plot with Egger’s test for publication bias. Results 73 articles were included in the analysis. The overall prevalence of challenging history taking encounters was 19.5% (95% CI 14.2% to 24.7%). Adverse outcomes of patient dissatisfaction (level 1 evidence) and diagnostic uncertainty (level 3 evidence) were identified. Factors associated with (n=22) and strategies to mitigate challenging encounters (n=13) were categorised. Correlation of factors and strategies with a phenomenological approach created a framework to assist novice history takers in approaching such circumstances. Conclusions Challenging history taking encounters are common. Little is known of the relative importance of factors associated with challenging history taking encounters or the impact of suggested strategies. Many of the suggested strategies to facilitate meaningful communication in these situations involve a departure from standard history taking. More research is required to better define the nature of challenges encountered in history taking with a view to develop better educational models for trainee physicians.