Difference between revisions of "Landmark-etal2017a"
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) m (SaulAlbert moved page Landmark-elat2017 to Landmark-etal2017a without leaving a redirect: elat / etal) |
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|Title=Patient involvement and language barriers: problems of agreement or understanding? | |Title=Patient involvement and language barriers: problems of agreement or understanding? | ||
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Multilingualism; Decision Making; Patient Participation; Hospital; Understanding | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Multilingualism; Decision Making; Patient Participation; Hospital; Understanding | ||
| − | |Key=Landmark- | + | |Key=Landmark-etal2017a |
|Year=2017 | |Year=2017 | ||
|Journal=Patient Education and Counseling | |Journal=Patient Education and Counseling | ||
Latest revision as of 13:09, 12 August 2018
| Landmark-etal2017a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Landmark-etal2017a |
| Author(s) | Anne Marie Dalby Landmark, Jan Svennevig, Jennifer Gerwing, Pål Gulbrandsen |
| Title | Patient involvement and language barriers: problems of agreement or understanding? |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Multilingualism, Decision Making, Patient Participation, Hospital, Understanding |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2017 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Patient Education and Counseling |
| Volume | 100 |
| Number | 6 |
| Pages | 1092-1102 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.pec.2016.12.006 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
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 obtaining the patient’s participation. In ratings of PCC and SDM, this physician 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.
Notes
