4.5 Article

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

期刊

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
卷 100, 期 6, 页码 1092-1102

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.12.006

关键词

Multilingual interaction; Treatment decision-making; Patient involvement; Understanding; Conversation analysis; Communication skills; Hospital

资金

  1. Research Council of Norway [204529]
  2. Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence funding scheme [223265]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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