Parent resistance to physicians' treatment recommendations: one resource for initiating a negotiation of the treatment decision

The "unknown territory" of goal-setting: Negotiating a novel interactional activity within primary care doctor-patient consultations for patients with multiple chronic conditions

Goal-setting is widely recommended for supporting patients with multiple long-term conditions. It involves a proactive approach to a clinical consultation, requiring doctors and patients to work together to identify patient's priorities, values and desired outcomes as a basis for setting goals for the patient to work towards. Importantly it comprises a set of activities that, for many doctors and patients, represents a distinct departure from a conventional consultation, including goal elicitation, goal-setting and action planning. This indicates that goal-setting is an uncertain interactional space subject to inequalities in understanding and expectations about what type of conversation is taking place, the roles of patient and doctor, and how patient priorities may be configured as goals. Analysing such spaces therefore has the potential for revealing how the principles of goal-setting are realised in practice. In this paper, we draw on Goffman's concept of ‘frames’ to present an examination of how doctors' and patients' sense making of goal-setting was consequential for the interactions that followed. Informed by Interactional Sociolinguistics, we used conversation analysis methods to analyse 22 video-recorded goal-setting consultations with patients with multiple long-term conditions. Data were collected between 2016 and 2018 in three UK general practices as part of a feasibility study. We analysed verbal and non-verbal actions for evidence of GP and patient framings of consultation activities and how this was consequential for setting goals. We identified three interactional patterns: GPs checking and reframing patients' understanding of the goal-setting consultation, GPs actively aligning with patients' framing of their goal, and patients passively and actively resisting GP framing of the patient goals. These reframing practices provided “telling cases” of goal-setting interactions, where doctors and patients need to negotiate each other's perspectives but also conflicting discourses of patient-centredness, population-based evidence for treating different chronic illnesses and conventional doctor-patient relations.

•

First study of GP goal-setting interactions for patients with multiple conditions.

•

Goal-setting involves novel activities in an uncertain interactional space.

•

GPs and patients may need to negotiate different framings of patient's priorities.

•

GPs may actively align with patient's goal, patients may resist GP framing of goal.

•

Negotiation of frames reveal conflicting discourses invoked at interactional level.

Medical Authority under Siege: How Clinicians Transform Patient Resistance into Acceptance

Over the past decades, professional medical authority has been transformed due to internal and external pressures, including weakened institutional support and patient-centered care. Today's patients are more likely to resist treatment recommendations. We examine how patient resistance to treatment recommendations indexes the strength of contemporary professional authority. Using conversation analytic methods, we analyze 39 video recordings of patient-clinician encounters involving pediatric epilepsy patients in which parents resist recommended treatments. We identify three distinct grounds for parental resistance to treatments: preference-, fear-, and experience-based resistance. Clinicians meet these grounds with three corresponding persuasion strategies ranging from pressuring, to coaxing, to accommodating. Rather than giving parents what they want, physicians preserve their professional authority, adjusting responses based on whether the resistance threatens their prerogative to prescribe. While physicians are able to convert most resistance into acceptance, resistance has the potential to change the treatment recommendation and may lead to changed communication styles.

Invoking death: How oncologists discuss a deadly outcome

Existing sociological research documents patient and physician reticence to discuss death in the context of a patient's end of life. This study offers a new approach to analyzing how death gets discussed in medical interaction. Using a corpus of 90 video-recorded oncology visits and conversation analytic (CA) methods, this analysis reveals that when existing parameters are expanded to look at mentions of death outside of the end-of-life context, physicians do discuss death with their patients. Specifically, the most frequent way physicians invoke death is in a persuasive context during treatment recommendation discussions. When patients demonstrate active or passive resistance to a recommendation, physicians invoke the possibility of the patient's death to push back against this resistance and lobby for treatment. Occasionally, physicians invoke death in instances where resistance is anticipated but never actualized. Similarly, death invocations function for treatment advocacy. Ultimately, this study concludes that physicians in these data invoke death to leverage their professional authority for particular treatment outcomes.

How do physiotherapists solicit and explore patients' concerns in back pain consultations: a conversation analytic approach

Background: Guidelines advocate that non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP) be considered within a multi-dimensional bio-psychosocial (BPS) framework. This BPS approach advocates incorporating the patient's perspective as part of the treatment process. 'Agenda setting' has been introduced as the key to understanding patients' concerns in medical encounters; however, this has received little attention in physiotherapy. This study explored how physiotherapists solicit and respond to the agenda of concerns that patients with NSCLBP bring to initial encounters. Method: The research setting was primary care. Twenty initial physiotherapy consultations were video-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using conversation analysis, a qualitative observational method. Both verbal and non-verbal features of the interaction were considered. Results: This data highlights a spectrum of communication styles ranging from more physiotherapist-focused, where the physiotherapists did not attend to patients' concerns, to a more patient-focused style, which provided greater opportunities for patients to voice their concerns. On occasions, patients were willing to pursue their own agenda when their concern was initially overlooked. Conclusion: This study provides empirical evidence on communication patterns in physiotherapy practice. A more collaborative style of communication with a shared conversational agenda provided patients with the conversational space to describe their concerns more fully.

Involving patients with dementia in decisions to initiate treatment: effect on patient acceptance, satisfaction and medication prescription

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making is advocated but may be affected by cognitive impairment. Measures of shared decision-making provide global descriptions of communication without detailed analysis of the subtle ways in which doctors invite patient input.AimsWe aimed to explore medication decisions in dementia, using a standardised Treatment Recommendation Coding Scheme.

METHOD

We analysed 71 video-recorded dementia diagnostic meetings from nine memory clinics. Recommendations were coded as pronouncements ('I will start you on medication'), proposals ('Shall we try medication?'), suggestions ('Would you like to try medication?'), offers ('I can prescribe medication') or assertions ('There is medication'). Patient responses were coded as acceptance ('I'd like to have that'), active resistance ('I'm not very keen') and passive resistance (minimal or no response). Cognitive test scores, prescription rates and satisfaction were assessed and associations were explored.

RESULTS

Doctors used suggestions in 42% of meetings, proposals in 25%, assertions in 13%, pronouncements in 11% and offers in 9%. Over 80% of patients did not indicate clear acceptance. Patients were most likely to actively resist after suggestions. There was no association between cognitive impairment and recommendation format. Patients were less satisfied with pronouncements. Patient preference did not influence whether medication was prescribed.

CONCLUSIONS

Doctors initially nominate people with dementia as the decision maker, and this is unaffected by cognitive impairment. Over 80% of patients resisted starting medication, mostly through passive resistance, the most common form of disagreement in communication. Medication still tended to be prescribed, indicating that factors other than patient preference affect prescription.Declarations of interestNone.

'Breast cancer won't kill ya in the breast': Broaching a rationale for chemotherapy during the surgical consultation for early-stage breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

To examine how, and for what interactional purpose, a surgeon raises the risk of death with an early-stage breast cancer patient.

METHOD

Single-case analysis of a recorded surgical consultation, using conversation analysis.

RESULTS

The surgeon not only negotiates the surgical treatment decision with the patient, she provides an overview of what her non-surgical treatment is likely to entail. Analysis reveals how the surgeon addresses interactional challenges when providing this overview, including how to broach the rationale for administering chemotherapy, the possibility that cancer could spread to vital organs and prove fatal. To do this, the surgeon orients to the possibility that the patient has misconceptions about her risk of dying from breast cancer. She uses negatively-formulated assertions to invoke these possible misconceptions, making correction relevant and providing a point of entry into delicate interactional territory.

CONCLUSION

The surgeon draws upon possible patient misconceptions to broach the rationale for administering adjuvant chemotherapy.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The surgical consultation is typically the first treatment-related consultation newly-diagnosed breast cancer patients have and represents an opportunity to educate patients and prepare them for future treatment decisions. The challenges of providing and receiving such overviews, and how they may influence future treatment decisions, merit consideration.

Campaign Preparation for Complex Initiatives: A Person-Centered Approach to Audience Segmentation of Parents' Antibiotic Stewardship

The evolution of antibiotic resistance is outpacing the speed at which new antibiotics will reach the marketplace. To slow the rate of resistance, people need to engage in antibiotic stewardship, which includes acts to prevent the spread of bacteria and judicious use of antibiotics to treat infections. This study identified the patterns and predictors of antibiotic stewardship behaviors of parents (N = 516) related to their children. The latent class analysis revealed three profiles of parental stewardship, labeled Stewards, Requesters, and Non-Stewards. The findings implied different campaign goals: to encourage Stewards to follow through on their intentions, to encourage Requesters to stop asking providers for antibiotics when their children have ear infections, and to influence Non-Stewards to accept medical advice when an antibiotic is not indicated and to dispose of leftover antibiotics. The covariate analysis provided theoretical insight into the strategies to pursue in campaigns targeting these three groups. For example, parents who perceived antibiotic-resistant infections as less serious health conditions, felt less worry when thinking about their child getting an antibiotic-resistant infection, and had stronger misattributions of antibiotics' efficacy to treat multiple symptoms were more likely to be Requesters and Non-Stewards, instead of Stewards.

Deferring the Decision Point: Treatment Assertions in Neurology Outpatient Consultations

Recommendations can be implied by asserting some generalisation about a treatment's benefit without overtly directing the patient to take it. Focusing on a collection of assertions in UK neurology consultations, this paper shows that these are overwhelmingly receipted as "merely" doing informing and argues that this is made possible by their ambiguous design: their relatively depersonalised formats convey that the neurologist is simply telling the patient what's available, but the link made between the treatment and the patient's condition implies that it will be of benefit. Thus, assertions, while stopping short of telling the patient what to do, are hearable as recommendation relevant. This delicates balance leaves it up to the patient to respond either to the implied or on-record action (recommending vs. informing). When treated as "merely" doing informing, assertions defer the decision point until the neurologist has done something more. Three main interactional functions of this are identified as follows: (i) indicating the existence of a solution to a concern, without making a decision relevant next; (ii) orienting to the patient's right to choose; and (iii) making "cautious" recommendations.

Closing the Deal: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Treatment Resistance

This study investigates patient resistance to doctors' treatment recommendations in a cross-national comparison of primary care. Through this lens, we explore English and American patients' enacted priorities, expectations, and assumptions about treating routine illnesses with prescription versus over-the-counter medications. We perform a detailed analysis of 304 (American) and 393 (English) naturally occurring treatment discussions and conclude that American and English patients tend to use treatment resistance in different prescribing contexts to pursue different ends. While American patients are most likely to resist recommendations for non-prescription treatment and display an expectation for prescription treatment in these interactions, English patients show a high level of resistance to recommendations for all types of treatment and display an expectation of cautious prescribing. These behavioral trends reflect broader structural forces unique to each national context and ultimately maintain distinct cultural norms of good-practice prescribing.

How Psychiatrists Recommend Treatment and Its Relationship with Patient Uptake

Consultations for patients with chronic mental health conditions are conceived as meetings of experts: medical and experiential, respectively. Treatment decisions, in these terms, become a joint responsibility rather than handed down ex-cathedra. One resource for constituting decisions as 'shared' is the treatment recommendation - decisional authority can be invoked through its design. There is concern that people diagnosed with schizophrenia are infrequently involved in treatment decisions. However, the methods psychiatrists actually employ remain undefined. This article advances our understanding of psychiatric practice by mapping alternative methods used by psychiatrists to recommend treatment in outpatient consultations in situ. First, we unpack the types of treatments psychiatrists recommend. Then, we ask how psychiatrists recommend treatment? Applying a novel coding taxonomy, informed by the conversation analytic principle that recommendations represent different social actions, we identify the distribution of alternative formulations for psychiatrists' recommendations (pronouncements, suggestions, proposals, and offers). We also propose one linguistic dimension, personal pronouns, on which recommending actions often depend, implicative for who is projected as 'accountable' for the decision. Finally, we examine the relationship between action type and patient uptake: is a particular type of recommendation more likely to attract acceptance/resistance from patients? And how does this relate to decisional accountability?

Preliminaries to Treatment Recommendations in UK Primary Care: A Vehicle for Shared Decision Making?

This paper focuses on a recurrent practice observed in UK primary care data - how physicians use pre-recommendations: action sequences that when initiated post-diagnosis are recognisably preliminary to the drug treatment recommendations that they contingently project. Data are drawn from recorded primary care consultations collected in England. Pre-recommendations consist of physician requests for information about prior medicines such as, What've you tried taking? or Have you taken anything so far? Patient responses subsequently shape the first part of the base treatment recommendation pair. These preliminaries can help physicians manage potential obstacles to patient acceptance: by avoiding prescribing something a patient is already taking, or has tried and found to be ineffective, and by accommodating concerns such as side effects or practical barriers to acceptance. Pre-recommendations are a strategy for convincing/persuading whilst allowing physicians to avoid making an ill-fitted recommendation that might be resisted or rejected as unwanted or unnecessary.

Treatment Recommendations as Actions

From the earliest studies of doctor-patient interaction (Byrne & Long, 1976), it has been recognized that treatment recommendations may be expressed in more or less authoritative ways, based on their design and delivery. There are clear differences between I'm going to start you on X and We can give you X to try and Would you like me to give you X? Yet little is known about this variation, its contexts, or its consequences. In this paper, we develop a basic taxonomy of treatment recommendations in primary care as a first step toward a more comprehensive investigation. We take as our point of departure the observation that treatment recommendations such as those above represent not only different formulations but also different social actions. We distinguish five main treatment recommendation actions: pronouncements, suggestions, proposals, offers, and assertions. We ask: what are the main dimensions on which these recommendations vary and to what end? And what sorts of factors shape a clinician's use of one action type over another with respect to recommending a medication in the primary care context?

Developing an intelligent virtual agent to stratify people with cognitive complaints: A comparison of human–patient and intelligent virtual agent–patient interaction

Previous work on interactions in the memory clinic has shown that conversation analysis can be used to differentiate neurodegenerative dementia from functional memory disorder. Based on this work, a screening system was developed that uses a computerised ‘talking head’ (intelligent virtual agent) and a combination of automatic speech recognition and conversation analysis-informed programming. This system can reliably differentiate patients with functional memory disorder from those with neurodegenerative dementia by analysing the way they respond to questions from either a human doctor or the intelligent virtual agent. However, much of this computerised analysis has relied on simplistic, nonlinguistic phonetic features such as the length of pauses between talk by the two parties.

To gain confidence in automation of the stratification procedure, this paper investigates whether the patients’ responses to questions asked by the intelligent virtual agent are qualitatively similar to those given in response to a doctor. All the participants in this study have a clear functional memory disorder or neurodegenerative dementia diagnosis.

Analyses of patients’ responses to the intelligent virtual agent showed similar, diagnostically relevant sequential features to those found in responses to doctors’ questions. However, since the intelligent virtual agent’s questions are invariant, its use results in more consistent responses across people – regardless of diagnosis – which facilitates automatic speech recognition and makes it easier for a machine to learn patterns. Our analysis also shows why doctors do not always ask the same question in the exact same way to different patients. This sensitivity and adaptation to nuances of conversation may be interactionally helpful; for instance, altering a question may make it easier for patients to understand. While we demonstrate that some of what is said in such interactions is bound to be constructed collaboratively between doctor and patient, doctors could consider ensuring that certain, particularly important and/or relevant questions are asked in as invariant a form as possible to be better able to identify diagnostically relevant differences in patients’ responses.

Evaluating nuanced practices for initiating decision-making in neurology clinics: a mixed-methods study

Background

We report follow-on research from our previous qualitative analysis of how neurologists offer patients choice in practice. This focus reflects the NHS’s emphasis on ‘patient choice’ and the lack of evidence-based guidance on how to enact it. Our primary study identified practices for offering choice, which we called ‘patient view elicitors’ (PVEs) and ‘option-listing’. However, that study was not designed to compare these with recommendations or to analyse the consequences of selecting one practice over another.

Objectives

To (1) map out (a) the three decision-making practices – recommending, PVEs and option-listing – together with (b) their interactional consequences; (2) identify, qualitatively and quantitatively, interactional patterns across our data set; (3) statistically examine the relationship between interactional practices and self-report data; and (4) use the findings from 1–3 to compare the three practices as methods for initiating decision-making.

Design

A mixed-methods secondary analysis of recorded neurology consultations and associated questionnaire responses. We coded every recommendation, PVE and option-list together with a range of variables internal (e.g. patients’ responses) and external to the consultation (e.g. self-reported patient satisfaction). The resulting matrix captured the qualitative and quantitative data for every decision.

Setting and participants

The primary study was conducted in two neurology outpatient centres. A total of 14 neurologists, 223 patients and 114 accompanying others participated.

Results

Distribution of practices – recommending was the most common approach to decision-making. Patient demographics did not appear to play a key role in patterning decisional practices. Several clinical factors did show associations with practice, including (1) that neurologists were more likely to use option-lists or PVEs when making treatment rather than investigation decisions, (2) they were more certain about a diagnosis and (3) symptoms were medically explained. Consequences of practices – option-lists and PVEs (compared with recommendations) – were strongly associated with choice by neurologists and patients. However, there was no significant difference in overall patient satisfaction relating to practices employed. Recommendations were strongly associated with a course of action being agreed. Decisions containing PVEs were more likely to end in rejection. Option-lists often ended in the decision being deferred. There was no relationship between length of consultation and the practice employed.

Limitations

A main limitation is that we judged only outcomes based on the recorded consultations and the self-report data collected immediately thereafter. We do not know what happened beyond the consultation.

Conclusions

Patient choice is harder to enact than policy directives acknowledge. Although there is good evidence that neurologists are seeking to enact patient choice, they are still more likely to make recommendations. This appears to be partly due to concerns that ‘choice’ might conflict with doctors’ duty of care. Future guidance needs to draw on evidence regarding choice in practice to support doctors and patients to achieve the wider goal of shared decision-making.

Future research

To advance understanding of how interactional practices might have effects beyond the clinic, a priority is to investigate associations between decision-making practices and external outcomes (such as adherence).

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Conversation Analysis of Veterinarians' Proposals for Long-Term Dietary Change in Companion Animal Practice in Ontario, Canada

Nutritional changes recommended by veterinarians to clients can have a major role in animal-patient health. Although there is literature on best practices that can inform veterinary communication training, little is known specifically about how veterinarians communicate their recommendations to clients in real-life interactions. This study used the qualitative research method of conversation analysis to investigate the form and content of veterinarian-initiated proposals for long-term dietary change in canine and feline patients to further inform veterinary communication training. We analyzed the characteristics and design of veterinarian-initiated proposals for long-term nutritional modification as well as the appointment phases during which they occurred, in a subsample of 42 videotaped segments drawn from 35 companion animal appointments in eastern Ontario, Canada. Analyses indicated that veterinarians initiated proposals at various points during the consultations rather than as a predictable part of treatment planning at the end. While some proposals were worded strongly (e.g., "She should be on…"), most proposals avoided the presumption that dietary change would inevitably occur. Such proposals described dietary items as options (e.g., "There are also special diets…") or used mitigating language (e.g., "you may want to try…"). These findings seem to reflect delicate veterinarian-client dynamics associated with dietary advice-giving in veterinary medicine that can impact adherence and limit shared decision-making. Our analyses offer guidance for communication training in veterinary education related to dietary treatment decision-making.

Communicating Delicately: Introducing the Need to Make a Decision About the Use of Life-Sustaining Treatment

The purpose of this study was to explore how clinicians introduce the need to make a decision about the use of life-sustaining treatment and how surrogates respond to these introductions during family conferences in the intensive care unit. This article focuses on the use of the perspective-display sequence as a way to introduce the decision-making conversation. In the family conferences, the perspective-display sequence involved (a) the clinician's perspective-display invitation of the surrogates' assessment of the patient's wishes, (b) the surrogates' reply or assessment, and (c) the clinician's decision proposal, which often incorporates the surrogates' assessment. Asking about the patient's wishes is a delicate way to ease into the decision-making conversation. By using the perspective-display sequence, clinicians are also participating in shared decision making; their decision proposal is co-constructed with surrogates' understanding of the patient's wishes regarding the treatment.

Patient participation in decision-making about cardiovascular preventive drugs - resistance as agency

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to describe and explore patient agency through resistance in decision-making about cardiovascular preventive drugs in primary care.

DESIGN

Six general practitioners from the southeast of Sweden audiorecorded 80 consultations. From these, 28 consultations with proposals from GPs for cardiovascular preventive drug treatments were chosen for theme-oriented discourse analysis.

RESULTS

The study shows how patients participate in decision-making about cardiovascular preventive drug treatments through resistance in response to treatment proposals. Passive modes of resistance were withheld responses and minimal unmarked acknowledgements. Active modes were to ask questions, contest the address of an inclusive we, present an identity as a non-drugtaker, disclose non-adherence to drug treatments, and to present counterproposals. The active forms were also found in anticipation to treatment proposals from the GPs. Patients and GPs sometimes displayed mutual renouncement of responsibility for decision-making. The decision-making process appeared to expand both beyond a particular phase in the consultations and beyond the single consultation.

CONCLUSIONS

The recognition of active and passive resistance from patients as one way of exerting agency may prove valuable when working for patient participation in clinical practice, education and research about patient-doctor communication about cardiovascular preventive medication. We propose particular attentiveness to patient agency through anticipatory resistance, patients' disclosures of non-adherence and presentations of themselves as non-drugtakers. The expansion of the decision-making process beyond single encounters points to the importance of continuity of care. KEY POINTS Guidelines recommend shared decision-making about cardiovascular preventive treatment. We need an understanding of how this is accomplished in actual consultations.This paper describes how patient agency in decision-making is displayed through different forms of resistance to treatment proposals. •The decision-making process expands beyond particular phases in consultations and beyond single encounters, implying the importance of continuity of care. •Attentiveness to patient participation through resistance in treatment negotiations is warranted in clinical practice, research and education about prescribing communication.

Culture, Styles of Institutional Interactions, and Inequalities in Healthcare Experiences

In this study, I examine how parents' cultural knowledge shapes experiences navigating the healthcare system after a child is diagnosed with cancer and the extent to which differential styles of health-related advocacy contribute to inequalities in healthcare experiences. I combine data from parents' perspectives, physicians' perspectives, and direct observation of clinical interactions and find three overarching styles of health-related advocacy. Findings show that cultural dispositions and competencies shape parents' abilities to effectively navigate the healthcare system, and physicians differentially reward each style of health-related advocacy. Parents' styles of advocacy shape relationships with clinicians, physicians' perceptions of families, and physicians' strategies for interacting with families. These findings refine understanding of the mechanisms through which social class manifests in clinical interactions, shapes patient-physician relationships, and contributes to unequal healthcare experiences.

Patient involvement and language barriers: Problems of agreement or understanding?

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to explicate efforts for realizing patient-centeredness (PCC) and involvement (SDM) in a difficult decision-making situation. It investigates what communicative strategies a physician used and the immediate, observable consequences for patient participation.

METHODS

From a corpus of videotaped hospital encounters, one case in which the physician and patient used Norwegian as lingua franca was selected for analysis using conversation analysis (CA). Secondary data were measures of PCC and SDM.

RESULTS

Though the physician did extensive interactional work to secure the patient's understanding and acceptance of a treatment recommendation, his persistent attempts did not succeed in generating the patient's participation. In ratings of PCC and SDM, this case scored well above average.

CONCLUSION

Despite the fact that this encounter displays some of the 'best actual practice' of PCC and SDM within the corpus, our analysis of the interaction shows why the strategies were insufficient in the context of a language barrier and possible disagreement.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

When facing problems of understanding, agreement and participation in treatment decision-making, relatively good patient centered skills may not suffice. Knowledge about the interactional realization of key activities is needed for developing training targeted at overcoming such challenges.

Communication practices that encourage and constrain shared decision making in health-care encounters: Systematic review of conversation analytic research

Background

Shared decision making (SDM) is generally treated as good practice in health‐care interactions. Conversation analytic research has yielded detailed findings about decision making in health‐care encounters.

Objective

To map decision making communication practices relevant to health‐care outcomes in face‐to‐face interactions yielded by prior conversation analyses, and to examine their function in relation to SDM.

Search strategy

We searched nine electronic databases (last search November 2016) and our own and other academics' collections.

Inclusion criteria

Published conversation analyses (no restriction on publication dates) using recordings of health‐care encounters in English where the patient (and/or companion) was present and where the data and analysis focused on health/illness‐related decision making.

Data extraction and synthesis

We extracted study characteristics, aims, findings relating to communication practices, how these functioned in relation to SDM, and internal/external validity issues. We synthesised findings aggregatively.

Results

Twenty‐eight publications met the inclusion criteria. We sorted findings into 13 types of communication practices and organized these in relation to four elements of decision‐making sequences: (i) broaching decision making; (ii) putting forward a course of action; (iii) committing or not (to the action put forward); and (iv) HCPs' responses to patients' resistance or withholding of commitment. Patients have limited opportunities to influence decision making. HCPs' practices may constrain or encourage this participation.

Conclusions

Patients, companions and HCPs together treat and undertake decision making as shared, though to varying degrees. Even for non‐negotiable treatment trajectories, the spirit of SDM can be invoked through practices that encourage participation (eg by bringing the patient towards shared understanding of the decision's rationale).

Using a patient decision aid for insulin initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes: a qualitative analysis of doctor-patient conversations in primary care consultations in Malaysia

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether the use of apatient decision aid (PDA) for insulin initiation fulfils its purpose of facilitating patient-centred decision-making through identifying how doctors and patients interact when using the PDA during primary care consultations.

DESIGN

Conversation analysis of seven single cases of audio-recorded/video-recorded consultations between doctors and patients with type 2 diabetes, using a PDA on starting insulin.

SETTING

Primary care in three healthcare settings: (1) one private clinic; (2) two public community clinics and (3) one primary care clinic in a public university hospital, in Negeri Sembilan and the Klang Valley in Malaysia.

PARTICIPANTS

Clinicians and seven patients with type 2 diabetes to whom insulin had been recommended. Purposive sampling was used to select a sample high in variance across healthcare settings, participant demographics and perspectives on insulin.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Interaction between doctors and patients in a clinical consultation involving the use of a PDA about starting insulin.

RESULTS

Doctors brought the PDA into the conversation mainly by asking information-focused 'yes/no' questions, and used the PDA for information exchange only if patients said they had not read it. While their contributions were limited by doctors' questions, some patients disclosed issues or concerns. Although doctors' PDA-related questions acted as a presequence to deliberation on starting insulin, their interactional practices raised questions on whether patients were informed and their preferences prioritised.

CONCLUSIONS

Interactional practices can hinder effective PDA implementation, with habits from ordinary conversation potentially influencing doctors' practices and complicating their implementation of patient-centred decision-making. Effective interaction should therefore be emphasised in the design and delivery of PDAs and in training clinicians to use them.

Balancing task focus and relationship building: asking sleepy patients about traffic risk in treatment initiation consultations

BACKGROUND

The use of traffic risk assessment questions is an understudied area in nursing research. Obstructive sleep apnoea is associated with an increased risk of traffic accidents. Therefore, traffic safety authorities demand adherent continuous positive airway pressure use. Nurses act as coaches to achieve treatment adherence, but they are also obliged to act as state agents by prohibiting obstructive sleep apnoea patients from drowsy driving.

OBJECTIVE

To examine how nurses and obstructive sleep apnoea patients manage traffic risk assessment questions in the relation-building context of treatment initiation consultations.

METHODS

To study, in detail, the actual practice of risk assessment, we used conversation analysis of 19 video-recorded initial treatment consultations with nurses and recently diagnosed obstructive sleep apnoea patients.

ETHICS

The study received ethical approval from the Central Ethical Review Board in Linköping (registration number 214/231-32) and follows the ethical guidelines for qualitative research.

RESULTS

Patients influence how nurses phrase questions about traffic risk by taking a stance to daytime sleepiness prior to the risk question. Nurses ask traffic risk questions in a way that assumes that driving is unproblematic if patients have not previously indicated problems. It may pose a significant problem when nurses, by accepting patients' prior stance when asking about traffic risk, orient to relationship building rather than task focus.

CONCLUSION

To clarify the difference between their two potentially conflicting roles, nurses need to refer to existing laws and official guidelines when they raise the issue of risk in treatment initiation consultations. Nurses should also ask risk assessment questions in a problem-oriented communicative environment. Traffic risk assessment is sensitive yet important, as obstructive sleep apnoea is a highly prevalent problem causing excessive sleepiness. It is essential to acknowledge nurses' double roles with regard to coaching continuous positive airway pressure treatment and assessing traffic risk.

Healthcare professionals' assertions and women's responses during labour: A conversation analytic study of data from One born every minute

OBJECTIVE

Communication during labour is consequential for women's experience yet analyses of situated labour-ward interaction are rare. This study demonstrates the value of explicating the interactional practices used to initiate 'decisions' during labour.

METHODS

Interactions between 26 labouring women, their birth partners and HCPs were transcribed from the British television programme, One Born Every Minute. Conversation analysis was used to examine how decisions were initiated and accomplished in interaction.

FINDINGS

HCPs initiate decision-making using interactional practices that vary the 'optionality' afforded labouring women in the responsive turn. Our focus here is on the minimisation of optionality through 'assertions'. An 'assertive' turn-design (e.g. 'we need to…') conveys strong expectation of agreement. HCPs assert decisions in contexts of risk but also in contexts of routine activities. Labouring women tend to acquiesce to assertions.

CONCLUSION

The expectation of agreement set up by an assertive initiating turn can reduce women's opportunities to participate in shared decision-making (SDM).

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

When decisions are asserted by HCPs there is a possible dissonance between the tenets of SDM in British health policy and what occurs in situ. This highlights an educational need for HCPs in how best to afford labouring women more optionality, particularly in low-risk contexts.

Patient participation in palliative care decisions: An ethnographic discourse analysis

The participation of patients in making decisions about their care is especially important towards the end of life because palliative care decisions involve extensive uncertainty and are heavily influenced by personal values. Yet, there is a scarcity of studies directly observing clinical interactions between palliative patients and their health care providers. In this study, we aimed to understand how patient participation in palliative care decisions is constructed through discourse in a community hospital-based palliative care team. This qualitative study combined ethnographic observations of a palliative care team with discourse analysis. Eighteen palliative care patients with cancer diagnoses, six family physicians, and two nurses were involved in the study. Multiple interactions were observed between each patient and health care providers over the course of 1 year, for a total of 101 consultations, 24 of which were audio-recorded. The analysis consisted in looking for the interpretive repertoires (i.e., familiar lines of argument used to justify actions) that were used to justify patient participation in decision-making during clinical interactions, as well as exploring their implications for decision roles and end-of-life care. Patients and their health care providers seldom addressed their decision-making roles explicitly. Rather, they constructed patient participation in palliative care decisions in a covert manner. Four interpretive repertoires were used to justify patient participation: (1) exposing uncertainty, (2) co-constructing patient preferences, (3) affirming patient autonomy, and finally (4) upholding the authority of health care providers. The results demonstrate how patients and health care providers used these arguments to negotiate their respective roles in decision-making. In conclusion, patients and health care providers used a variety of interpretive repertoires to covertly negotiate their roles in decision-making, and to legitimize decisions that shaped patients’ dying trajectories. Discourse analysis encourages awareness of the role of language in either promoting or hindering patient participation in decision-making.

Young People Smokers' Reactions on Peer Influence Not to Smoke

BACKGROUND

Peers exert influence not to smoke but little is yet known on how this affects young people's behavior and cognitions.

OBJECTIVES

This experimental study investigates the impact of two types of peer influence not to smoke on the verbalized attitudes and responses of daily-smoking young people.

METHODS

Two conditions were conducted: 1) a peer confederate stating three times that s/he had quit smoking and was glad to have done so (covert peer influence); 2) a peer confederate making similar statements, but urging to quit smoking (overt peer influence). The participant performed a music task with the peer in order to disguise the true nature of the experiment. Thirty-one daily-smoking young people (16-24 years) participated; 44 responses in the overt and 34 responses in the covert condition were analyzed in a discourse analysis.

RESULTS

The participants in the covert condition were more elaborative about smoking, i.e., taking an active role in a dialogue about the experiences of the peer or the participant in quitting smoking while in the overt condition participants showed more passive resistance, i.e., not showing an intention to follow the advice but avoid causing the peer embarrassment or discomfort. Open resistance, i.e., demonstration of being well-informed and indicating the redundancy of the advice, does not significantly differ in these two conditions but occurs, for both, primarily at the third discouragement.

CONCLUSIONS

Overt and frequent discouragement seems to be less effective in stimulating young people to take an active role in the dialogue with their peers about smoking.

Questioning Children: Interactional Evidence of Implicit Bias in Medical Interviews

Social psychologists have shown experimentally that implicit race bias can influence an individual's behavior. Implicit bias has been suggested to be more subtle and less subject to cognitive control than more explicit forms of racial prejudice. Little is known about how implicit bias is manifest in naturally occurring social interaction. This study examines the factors associated with physicians selecting children rather than parents to answer questions in pediatric interviews about routine childhood illnesses. Analysis of the data using a Generalized Linear Latent and Mixed Model demonstrates a significant effect of parent race and education on whether physicians select children to answer questions. Black children and Latino children of low-education parents are less likely to be selected to answer questions than their same aged white peers irrespective of education. One way that implicit bias manifests itself in naturally occurring interaction may be through the process of speaker selection during questioning.

Formulating treatment recommendation as a logical consequence of the diagnosis in post-surgical oncological visits

OBJECTIVE

the article analyzes how a doctor delivers diagnoses and recommends treatment in a set of post-surgical oncological visits. The pattern of activities are explored in two different cases: when all diagnostic information is available, and when information is still missing.

METHODS

The data consist of 12 video-recorded visits of breast cancer patients to a senior oncologist. Conversation analysis is employed to analyze sequences in which the delivery of diagnosis and treatment recommendation unfold.

RESULTS

The oncologist formulates the treatment recommendation as a logical consequence deriving from the available diagnostic information. In cases when definitive diagnostic information on the cancer type is missing, the oncologist opts to anticipate hypothetical diagnostic scenarios, and to draw the therapeutic alternatives as logical outcomes envisionable from each of the different scenarios.

CONCLUSION

The communicative practice appears functional to encourage the patients' acceptance of a single treatment option rather than present the patients to and involve them in deliberating over multiple available treatment alternatives.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Rather than a normative adoption of existing protocols of communication in cancer care, a better understanding of communication practices in use can help practitioners to reflect upon and make intentional choices about different arrangements for the patient's participation.

A microanalysis of the clarity of information in physicians' and patients' discussions of treatment plans with and without language barriers

OBJECTIVE

Physicians and patients discuss treatment plans. If tasks within plans are not described adequately, patients cannot adhere. We evaluated task descriptions, testing whether patient engagement and language barriers affected task clarity.

METHOD

We sampled 12 videotaped hospital interactions from a corpus of 497: two encounters each from six hospital physicians, interacting with one native-speaking and one non-native-speaking patient. We used microanalysis of face-to-face dialogue to assess whether the physicians and patients achieved a complete, clear description of each task's three core information elements (who should do what and when).

RESULTS

We conducted detailed analysis on 78 of the 90 tasks. Core information elements were complete in 62 (0.79) and clear in 37 (0.47). Language barriers had no effect on task clarity. When native-speaking patients were engaged, tasks were clearer (p<0.05). Although non-native-speaking patients were significantly more engaged (p<0.01), their engagement had no effect.

CONCLUSION

Physicians may be pursuing patients' agreement, motivation, and commitment at the expense of working with the patient to be clear about what needs to be done.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Physicians need to improve how clearly they present basic task information. Previous research demonstrated that even a short course can significantly improve the clarity of instructions.

Development of the Chronic Pain Coding System (CPCS) for Characterizing Patient-Clinician Discussions About Chronic Pain and Opioids

OBJECTIVE

To describe the development and initial application of the Chronic Pain Coding System.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

Six primary care clinics in northern California.

SUBJECTS

Forty-five primary care visits involving 33 clinicians and 45 patients on opioids for chronic noncancer pain.

METHODS

The authors developed a structured coding system to accurately and objectively characterize discussions about pain and opioids. Two coders applied the final system to visit transcripts. Intercoder agreement for major coding categories was moderate to substantial (kappa = 0.5-0.7). Mixed effects regression was used to test six hypotheses to assess preliminary construct validity.

RESULTS

Greater baseline pain interference was associated with longer pain discussions (P = 0.007) and more patient requests for clinician action (P = 0.02) but not more frequent negative patient evaluations of pain (P = 0.15). Greater clinician-reported visit difficulty was associated with more frequent disagreements with clinician recommendations (P = 0.003) and longer discussions of opioid risks (P = 0.049) but not more frequent requests for clinician action (P = 0.11). Rates of agreement versus disagreement with patient requests and clinician recommendations were similar for opioid-related and non-opioid-related utterances.

CONCLUSIONS

This coding system appears to be a reliable and valid tool for characterizing patient-clinician communication about opioids and chronic pain during clinic visits. Objective data on how patients and clinicians discuss chronic pain and opioids are necessary to identify communication patterns and strategies for improving the quality and productivity of discussions about chronic pain that may lead to more effective pain management and reduce inappropriate opioid prescribing.

Justifying medication decisions in mental health care: Psychiatrists' accounts for treatment recommendations

Psychiatric practitioners are currently encouraged to adopt a patient centered approach that emphasizes the sharing of decisions with their clients, yet recent research suggests that fully collaborative decision making is rarely actualized in practice. This paper uses the methodology of Conversation Analysis to examine how psychiatrists justify their psychiatric treatment recommendations to clients. The analysis is based on audio-recordings of interactions between clients with severe mental illnesses (such as, schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, etc.) in a long-term, outpatient intensive community treatment program and their psychiatrist. Our focus is on how practitioners design their accounts (or rationales) for recommending for or against changes in medication type and dosage and the interactional deployment of these accounts. We find that psychiatrists use two different types of accounts: they tailor their recommendations to the clients' concerns and needs (client-attentive accounts) and ground their recommendations in their professional expertise (authority-based accounts). Even though psychiatrists have the institutional mandate to prescribe medications, we show how the use of accounts displays psychiatrists' orientation to building consensus with clients in achieving medical decisions by balancing medical authority with the sensitivity to the treatment relationship.

Third Party Interaction in the Medical Context: Code-switching and Control

The purpose of this paper is to examine the micro-interactional co-construction of power within Spanish language concordant medical consultations in California involving a third party family member. Findings indicate the third party instigates code-switching to English on the part of medical providers, a language that the patient does not understand, rendering the patient a non-participant in the medical consultation. In these consultations involving a third party family member, monolingual Spanish-speaking patients are stripped of control in ways that are similar to other powerless groups in medical consultations. Implications include the need to further examine how micro-level interactions reproduce societal ideologies and shape policy on the ground.

Fitting proposals to their sequential environment: a comparison of turn designs for proposing treatment in ongoing outpatient psychiatric consultations in Japan

This study is an attempt to describe an interactional strategy that psychiatrists use in making decisions for treatment in ongoing outpatient psychiatric consultations in Japan. Using conversation analysis (CA), we compare sequential environments where psychiatrists use two turn designs for proposing a treatment: the inclusive 'we' form (for example 'let's' and 'how about') and the declarative evaluation (for example, 'it might be better'). The inclusive 'we' form is used to create the moment for decision when the sequential environment is ready for decision-making. The declarative evaluation is used to propose a treatment cautiously when the sequential environment is not yet ready for decision-making. Taken together, psychiatrists fit the turn design of a proposal to its sequential environment in such a way as to display their attention to the patients' perspectives. In conclusion, we argue that our finding provides further evidence for the claim made by a growing body of CA research that, unlike the traditional sociological understanding of doctor-patient interaction, doctors do not simply impose their perspectives upon the patients but steer medical encounters to their preferred direction by orienting to the patients' perspectives.

Delivering patient choice in clinical practice: a conversation analytic study of communication practices used in neurology clinics to involve patients in decision-making

Background

The NHS is committed to offering patients more choice. Yet even within the NHS, the meaning of patient choice ranges from legal ‘rights to choose’ to the ambition of establishing clinical practice as a ‘partnership’ between doctor and patient. In the absence of detailed guidance, we focused on preciselyhowto engage patients in decision-making.

Objectives

To contribute to the evidence-base about whether or not, and how, patient choice is implemented to identify the most effective communication practices for facilitating patient choice.

Design

We used conversation analysis to examine practices whereby neurologists offer choice. The main data set consists of audio- and video-recorded consultations. Patients completed pre- and post-consultation questionnaires and neurologists completed the latter.

Setting and participants

The study was conducted in neurology outpatient clinics in Glasgow and Sheffield. Fourteen neurologists, 223 patients and 120 accompanying others took part.

Results

Patients and clinicians agreed that choice had featured in 53.6% of consultations and that choice was absent in 14.3%. After 32.1% of consultations,eitherpatientorneurologist thought choice was offered. The presence or absence of choice was not satisfactorily explained by quantitatively explored clinical or demographic variables. For our qualitative analysis, the corpus was divided into four subsets: (1) patient and clinician agree that choice was present; (2) patient and clinician agree that choice was absent; (3) patient ‘yes’, clinician ‘no’; and (4) patient ‘no’, clinician ‘yes’. Comparison of all subsets showed that ‘option-listing’ was the only practice for offering choice that was presentonly(with one exception, which, as we show, proves the rule) in those consultations for which participantsagreed there was a choice. We show how option-listing can be used to engage patients in decision-making, but also how very small changes in the machinery of option-listing [for instance the replacement or displacement of the final component of this practice, the patient view elicitor (PVE)] can significantly alter the slot for patient participation. In fact, a slightly modified form of option-listing can be used to curtail choice. Finally, we describe two forms of PVE that can be used to hand a single-option decision to the patient, but which, we show, can raise difficulties for patient choice.

Conclusions

Choice features in the majority of recorded consultations. If doctors want to ensure a patient knows she or he has a choice, option-listing is likely to be best understood by patients as an invitation to choose. However, an important lesson from this study is that simply asking doctors to adopt a practice (like option-listing) will not automatically lead to a patient-centred approach. Our study shows that preciselyhowa practice is implemented is crucial.

Future research

Future research should investigate (1) links between the practices identified here and relevant outcome measures (like adherence); (2) whether being given a choice is better or worse for patients than receiving a doctor’s recommendation, taking account of clinical and demographic factors; and (3) how our approach could be fruitfully applied in other settings.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

The role of assessment packages for diagnostic consultations: A conversation analytic perspective

This article reports a conversation analysis of assessment package consultations. Healthcare delivery packages belong to a highly structured mode of healthcare delivery, in which specific courses of healthcare interventions related to assessment and treatment are predefined, both as to timing and content. Assessment packages are widely used in an increasing number of medical specialities; however, there is a lack of knowledge about how packaged assessment influences the interaction between doctor and patient. In this study, we investigate the final consultation in assessment packages, which is when the final clarification of the patient's symptoms takes place. The primary data of the study were eight audio recordings of consultations, and the secondary data were ethnographic field descriptions. In most consultations, packaged assessment was a resource as it provided fast and efficient clarification. In most cases, clarification was treated as good news since it either confirmed the absence of a serious disease or resulted in a diagnosis leading to relevant treatment offers. However, in some cases, clarification was not perceived as good news. This was the case in consultations with patients whose goal was to leave the consultation with clarification in the form of a definite diagnosis, but who were not offered such clarification. These patients negotiated the outcome of the consultation by applying implicit and explicit pressure, which induced the doctors to disregard the boundaries of the package and offer the patient more tests. The study highlights some of the problems related to introducing narrow, specialized package assessment.

Maintaining empathy in medical school: it is possible

BACKGROUND

Empathy is an indispensable skill in medicine and is an integral part of 'professionalism'. Yet, there is still increasing concern among medical educators and medical professionals regarding the decline in medical students' empathy during medical education.

AIMS

This article aims at comparing the levels of empathy in medical school students across the different years of undergraduate medical education. It also aims at examining differences in empathy in relation to gender, year of study, cultural and religious backgrounds, previous tertiary education and certain programmes within the curriculum.

METHOD

The Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy, Student version (JSPE-S) was employed to measure empathy levels in medical students (years one to five) in a cross-sectional study. Attached to the scale was a survey containing questions on demographics, stage of medical education, previous education, and level of completion of particular programmes that aim at promoting personal and professional development (PPD).

RESULTS

Four hundred and four students participated in the study. The scores of the JSPE-S ranged from 34 to 135 with a mean score of 109.07 ± 14.937. Female medical students had significantly higher empathy scores than male medical students (111 vs. 106, p < 0.001) across all five years of the medical course. There was no significant difference in the total empathy scores in relation to year of medical education. Yet, the highest means were scored by year five students who had completed personal and professional development courses.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that there is a gender difference in the levels of empathy, favouring female medical students. They also suggest that, despite prior evidence of a decline, empathy may be preserved in medical school by careful student selection and/or personal and professional development courses.

The architecture of provider-parent vaccine discussions at health supervision visits

OBJECTIVE

To characterize provider-parent vaccine communication and determine the influence of specific provider communication practices on parent resistance to vaccine recommendations.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional observational study in which we videotaped provider-parent vaccine discussions during health supervision visits. Parents of children aged 1 to 19 months old were screened by using the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines survey. We oversampled vaccine-hesitant parents (VHPs), defined as a score ≥50. We developed a coding scheme of 15 communication practices and applied it to all visits. We used multivariate logistic regression to explore the association between provider communication practices and parent resistance to vaccines, controlling for parental hesitancy status and demographic and visit characteristics.

RESULTS

We analyzed 111 vaccine discussions involving 16 providers from 9 practices; 50% included VHPs. Most providers (74%) initiated vaccine recommendations with presumptive (e.g., "Well, we have to do some shots") rather than participatory (e.g., "What do you want to do about shots?") formats. Among parents who voiced resistance to provider initiation (41%), significantly more were VHPs than non-VHPs. Parents had significantly higher odds of resisting vaccine recommendations if the provider used a participatory rather than a presumptive initiation format (adjusted odds ratio: 17.5; 95% confidence interval: 1.2-253.5). When parents resisted, 50% of providers pursued their original recommendations (e.g., "He really needs these shots"), and 47% of initially resistant parents subsequently accepted recommendations when they did.

CONCLUSIONS

How providers initiate and pursue vaccine recommendations is associated with parental vaccine acceptance.

Initiating decision-making in neurology consultations: 'recommending' versus 'option-listing' and the implications for medical authority

This article compares two practices for initiating treatment decision-making, evident in audio-recorded consultations between a neurologist and 13 patients in two hospital clinics in the UK. We call these 'recommending' and 'option-listing'. The former entails making a proposal to do something; the latter entails the construction of a list of options. Using conversation analysis (CA), we illustrate each, showing that the distinction between these two practices matters to participants. Our analysis centres on two distinctions between the practices: epistemic differences and differences in the slots each creates for the patient's response. Considering the implications of our findings for understanding medical authority, we argue that option-listing - relative to recommending - is a practice whereby clinicians work to relinquish a little of their authority. This article contributes, then, to a growing body of CA work that offers a more nuanced, tempered account of medical authority than is typically portrayed in the sociological literature. We argue that future CA studies should map out the range of ways - in addition to recommending - in which treatment decision-making is initiated by clinicians. This will allow for further evidence-based contributions to debates on the related concepts of patient participation, choice, shared decision-making and medical authority.

Patient disclosure of medical misdeeds

Modern patients walk a tightrope between respecting medical authority and acting as knowledgeable advocates regarding health issues, with the agency and responsibilities that come with this. This article uses conversation analysis to explore this balance in relation to patient disclosures of medical misdeeds in video-recorded primary care medical visits (e.g., taking another's prescription medication or failing to adhere to a healthy lifestyle or prescription regimen). We focus on patient-initiated disclosures. We show that disclosures are used (1) where patients are seeking physician assessment of their behavior, (2) where patients are proposing the etiology of a health problem, and (3) where patients are lobbying for a particular treatment outcome. We argue that disclosures of medical misdeeds are an important but understudied domain of conduct in which patients show awareness of their own agency over, and responsibility for, their healthcare and respect for the physician's medical authority.

Understanding physician antibiotic prescribing behaviour: a systematic review of qualitative studies

Inappropriate prescription has been associated with mounting rates of antibiotic resistance worldwide, demanding more detailed studies into physicians' decision-making process. Accordingly, this study sought to explore physicians' perceptions of factors influencing antibiotic prescribing. A systematic search was performed for qualitative studies focused on understanding physicians' perceptions of the factors, attitudes and knowledge influencing antibiotic prescription. Of the total of 35 papers selected for review purposes, 18 solely included physicians and the remaining 17 also included patients and/or other healthcare providers. Data collection was based mainly on interviews, followed by questionnaires and focus groups, and the methodologies mainly used for data analysis were grounded theory and thematic analysis. Factors cited by physicians as having an impact on antibiotic prescribing were grouped into those that were intrinsic (group 1) and those that were extrinsic (group 2) to the healthcare professional. Among the former, physicians' attitudes, such as complacency or fear, were rated as being most influential on antibiotic prescribing, whilst patient-related factors (e.g. signs and symptoms) or healthcare system-related factors (e.g. time pressure and policies/guidelines implemented) were the most commonly reported extrinsic factors. These findings revealed that: (i) antibiotic prescribing is a complex process influenced by factors affecting all the actors involved, including physicians, other healthcare providers, healthcare system, patients and the general public; and (ii) such factors are mutually dependent. Hence, by shedding new light on the process, these findings will hopefully contribute to generating new and more effective strategies for improving antibiotic prescribing and allaying global concern about antibiotic resistance.

Parallel vigilance: parents' dual focus following diagnosis of Type 1 diabetes mellitus in their young child

There is consensus that enabling patient self-care and expertise leads to better management of chronic illness. Clinicians are being encouraged to manage clinical encounters in ways that promote these outcomes rather than perpetuate hierarchical relationships. This article describes one part of a larger study of 55 outpatient consultations conducted within 14 months of the diagnosis of Type 1 diabetes mellitus in young children. Participants were parents and the specialist doctors, nurses, dieticians and social workers who oversee the child's secondary care. Consultations were audio-recorded and transcribed. Our analysis draws on aspects of conversation analysis (CA) to investigate how parents' talk enacts a growing confidence in the management of their child's disease in the face of questioning from professionals. Analysis reveals how this talk distinguishes a duality of focus that combines the normal watchfulness exhibited by all parents as they protect their children, with an additional intense, parallel watchfulness for signs of potentially serious manifestations of diabetes. We term this phenomenon parallel vigilance and illustrate its development using five representative extracts from consultations. The concept of parallel vigilance extends the chronic illness literature and informs our understanding of a process that contributes to parents' developing expertise and provides new and important insights into the way in which parents conceptualize and implement their evolving role in the care of their child. Moreover, parallel vigilance serves as an enabler of parental contributions to the specialist consultation.

'Let's have it tested first': choice and circumstances in decision-making following positive antenatal screening in Hong Kong

There now exists a considerable body of sociological work examining antenatal screening for fetal abnormalities. A common theme emerging from this literature is that pregnant women report not feeling able to exercise choice freely, experiencing constraints both from medical professionals and their perceived expectations of the sociocultures in which they live. This study adds to existing literature in three ways. Firstly, in contrast to the existing body of interview-based research, the study uses video recordings of actual consultations, in order to capture the interactional processes through which choice and constraints are established, negotiated and contested. Secondly, it explores the next stage in the process of antenatal screening, by focusing on women who are offered invasive diagnostic testing as a result of 'high risk' screening results, and who have been the subject of little research. Thirdly, the study site in Hong Kong provides a particularly interesting location, given limited research on antenatal screening in that part of the world, and Hong Kong's cosmopolitan environment that is reflected in the diversity of client population undergoing antenatal screening. Using conversation analysis we examine how aspects of the clients' diverse socioeconomic backgrounds and circumstances are interactionally managed in this setting, and how this might impact on decision-making.

Characterizing providers' immunization communication practices during health supervision visits with vaccine-hesitant parents: a pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the feasibility of using direct observation of provider-parent immunization discussions and to characterize provider communication practices with vaccine-hesitant parents.

METHODS

Over a 6 month period in 2010, we videotaped immunization discussions between pediatric providers and vaccine-hesitant parents during health supervision visits involving children 2-15 months old (N=24) in the Seattle area, Washington, USA. Videotapes were analyzed using the qualitative method of conversation analysis.

RESULTS

We approached 96 parents seen by 9 different providers. Of those who were eligible (N=56), we enrolled 43% (N=24). Four videotaped visits were excluded from analysis for failure to obtain parental HIPAA authorization. Of the remaining 20 visits, there were ≥2 visits each that involved children aged 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 15 months, and all videotaped visits contained at least a brief immunization discussion. We identified 6 communication practices and several behavior types within each practice relevant to immunization: Practice 1, providers' initiations of the topic of vaccination; Types: participatory or presumptive format; Practice 2, parents' responses to providers' topic initiations; Types: strong or weak acceptance or resistance; Practice 3, providers' follow-ups to parent's responses; Types: no, immediate, or delayed pursuit; Practice 4, parents' vaccine-related questions or statements; Types: fact- or concern-based; Practice 5, providers' explicit solicitations of parent's questions/concerns; Types: designed to discourage or encourage discussion; and Practice 6, parents' responses to providers' solicitations of questions/concerns; Types: no question or fact- or concern-based inquiry.

CONCLUSION

Direct observation of immunization discussions in the primary care pediatric setting is feasible and yields insight into several provider-parent immunization communication practices that are worthy of further study to determine which are effective at improving parental acceptance of immunization.

Are there interactional reasons why doctors may find it hard to tell patients that their physical symptoms may have emotional causes? A conversation analytic study in neurology outpatients

OBJECTIVE

This qualitative study analyses patients' conversational behaviours to explore whether there are interactional factors that could explain why doctors find clinical encounters in which the diagnosis of functional symptoms (physical symptoms with presumed emotional causes) is explained and psychological treatment offered particularly challenging.

METHODS

Twenty out-patient consultations between neurologists and patients with functional symptoms were recorded and analysed using Conversation Analysis. Patients' communication behaviour was characterised by pervasive interactional resistance. Instances of resistance were identified and counted.

RESULTS

Interactional resistance was especially evident when the aetiology of symptoms and treatment recommendations were discussed. Resistance was expressed overtly (through disagreements, challenges, rejections) or more passively (through moves such as lack of engagement with the interaction, silences or the use of minimal responses).

CONCLUSION

This study provides objective evidence that doctors face interactional challenges when they try to explain that symptoms are medically unexplained and suggest psychological treatment.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Doctors may try to avoid provoking patients' overt resistance because they perceive it as unpleasant. However, the display of overt resistance enables them to deal explicitly with the grounds on which patients reject their explanations and recommendations, and to address patients' particular concerns.

Offering patients choices: a pilot study of interactions in the seizure clinic

Using conversation analysis (CA), we studied conversations between one United Kingdom-based epilepsy specialist and 13 patients with seizures in whom there was uncertainty about the diagnosis and for whom different treatment and investigational options were being considered. In line with recent communication guidance, the specialist offered some form of choice to all patients: in eight cases, a course of action was proposed, to be accepted or rejected, and in the remaining five, a "menu" of options was offered. Even when presenting a menu, the specialist sometimes conveyed his own preferences in how he described the options, and in some cases the menu was used for reasons other than offering choice (e.g., to address patient resistance). Close linguistic and interactional analysis of clinical encounters can show why doctors may feel they are offering choices when patients report that the decision was clinician dominated.