Difference between revisions of "Monzoni-et-al2011"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Chiara M. Monzoni; Roderick Duncan; Richard Grünewald; Markus Reuber; |Title=Are there interactional reasons why doctors may...") |
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|Title=Are there interactional reasons why doctors may find it hard to tell patients that their physical symptoms may have emotional causes? A conversation analytic | |Title=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 | study in neurology outpatients | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Medical consultations; Emotion; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Medical consultations; Emotion; |
|Key=Monzoni-et-al2011 | |Key=Monzoni-et-al2011 | ||
|Year=2011 | |Year=2011 | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Volume=85 | |Volume=85 | ||
|Pages=189–200 | |Pages=189–200 | ||
| + | |Abstract=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. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 03:58, 19 August 2018
| Monzoni-et-al2011 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Monzoni-et-al2011 |
| Author(s) | Chiara M. Monzoni, Roderick Duncan, Richard Grünewald, Markus Reuber |
| Title | 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 |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Medical consultations, Emotion |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2011 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Patient Education and Counseling |
| Volume | 85 |
| Number | |
| Pages | 189–200 |
| URL | |
| DOI | |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
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.
Notes
