4.4 Article

Providing Opportunities for Patients to Say More about Their Pain without Overtly Asking: A Conversation Analysis of Doctors Repeating Patient Answers in Palliative Care Pain Assessment

期刊

APPLIED LINGUISTICS
卷 42, 期 5, 页码 990-1013

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/applin/amaa062

关键词

-

资金

  1. Health Foundation [RU33/GIFTS 7210]
  2. National Institute for Health Research Career Development Fellowship award [CDF-2014-07-046]
  3. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pain as a main symptom in palliative care requires careful assessment. Repeating patient answers with specific prosodic and rhythmic features can help doctors better understand patients' needs and encourage them to express more, when appropriate.
As the main symptom in palliative care, pain requires careful assessment. Repeating patient answers is one recommended communication technique for helping convey to patients that they have been heard, and to encourage them to say more. We examined 23 episodes where experienced doctors repeat patients' answers with mirrored rhythm and downward-final intonation, captured in pain assessments video-recorded in 37 consultations in a large UK hospice. Using conversation analysis, our aim was to determine whether or not the repeats invite additional talk, and if so, how they do so. Our findings reveal lexical and prosodic features of doctors' repeated pain answers that signal completion of the sequence. At the same time, because the patient has greater epistemic access to their own pain, a repeat can also invite confirmation or disconfirmation. The patients in our data sometimes-but not always-respond to the repeat with confirmation or further talk. We conclude that repeating patient answers with mirrored rhythm and downward-final intonation provides a noobligation opportunity for patient-led confirmation, disconfirmation, or expansion of pain descriptions, particularly when the pain matter is new, revised, or has been problematic to report.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据