Difference between revisions of "Landetal-2017"
ElliottHoey (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Victoria Land; Ruth Parry; Jane Seymour |Title=Communication practices that encourage and constrain shared decision-making in healthcare...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Victoria Land; Ruth Parry; Jane Seymour | |Author(s)=Victoria Land; Ruth Parry; Jane Seymour | ||
|Title=Communication practices that encourage and constrain shared decision-making in healthcare encounters: Systematic review of conversation analytic research | |Title=Communication practices that encourage and constrain shared decision-making in healthcare encounters: Systematic review of conversation analytic research | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; In Press; Shared decision-making; Patient Participation; Patient choice; Medical interaction; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; In Press; Shared decision-making; Patient Participation; Patient choice; Medical interaction; |
| − | |Key= | + | |Key=Land2017 |
|Year=2017 | |Year=2017 | ||
| + | |Language=English | ||
|Journal=Health Expectations | |Journal=Health Expectations | ||
| − | |URL= | + | |Volume=20 |
| + | |Number=6 | ||
| + | |Pages=1228–1247 | ||
| + | |URL=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/hex.12557 | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1111/hex.12557 | ||
|Abstract=Background: | |Abstract=Background: | ||
Shared decision making (SDM) is generally treated as good practice in healthcare interactions. Conversation analytic research has yielded detailed findings about decision making in healthcare encounters. | Shared decision making (SDM) is generally treated as good practice in healthcare interactions. Conversation analytic research has yielded detailed findings about decision making in healthcare encounters. | ||
Revision as of 05:05, 6 July 2018
| Landetal-2017 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Land2017 |
| Author(s) | Victoria Land, Ruth Parry, Jane Seymour |
| Title | Communication practices that encourage and constrain shared decision-making in healthcare encounters: Systematic review of conversation analytic research |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, In Press, Shared decision-making, Patient Participation, Patient choice, Medical interaction |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2017 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Health Expectations |
| Volume | 20 |
| Number | 6 |
| Pages | 1228–1247 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1111/hex.12557 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Background:
Shared decision making (SDM) is generally treated as good practice in healthcare interactions. Conversation analytic research has yielded detailed findings about decision making in healthcare encounters.
Objective:
To map decision making communication practices relevant to healthcare 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 healthcare 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 organised these in relation to four elements of decision making sequences: (1) broaching decision making; (2) putting forward a course of action; (3) committing or not (to the action put forward); and (4) 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 (e.g. by bringing the patient towards shared understanding of the decision’s rationale).
Notes
