A productive interaction with patients about their treatment, the meaning and consequences of their disease is relevant; research shows that this contributes to recovery and promotes health. Such an interaction is not always self-evident in medical practice. In her dissertation, Kromme investigated how internists view their interaction with the chronically ill, which interaction strategies they use in their language, and how they understand their role as health advocates. Internists view their interaction with patients as a goal-oriented process that runs better when the doctor and patient ‘click’ and when there is a relationship of trust. They, furthermore, distinguish between two types of symptoms and adjust their goals and strategies accordingly. For patients with symptoms related to diabetes, kidney failure, or HIV, the emphasis is on establishing a bond with the patient, mutual understanding, and agreement. In patients with medically unexplained (physical) symptoms (MUS), the internists are more often distant, directive, cautious in asking questions about psychosocial causes, and less inclined to make shared decision-making. It also appears that the internists experience ambivalence toward their role as health advocates. As a result, they invest little in interaction strategies aimed at activating patients to a healthy lifestyle. They struggle most with the role of health advocate where it is most relevant: with patients with MUS and when patients have a low socioeconomic position (SEP) together with low health literacy. When they respond to symptoms and problems as a medical expert, their interactions with these patients are less productive. More attention should be paid to resolving the ambivalence (and barriers) internists experience in their interactions with patients with MUS and lifestyle-related problems. Like these patients, internists otherwise stay caught between necessity on the one hand and powerlessness on the other. A complex system of individual and social ideas and role expectations determines the ambivalence of the internists. This complexity requires reflection on values and moral dilemmas, not only from all healthcare providers involved but also from policymakers and administrators.