Difference between revisions of "Lehtinen2013"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Esa Lehtinen; |Title=Hedging, knowledge and interaction: Doctors’ and clients’ talk about medical information and client experience...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Esa Lehtinen; | + | |Author(s)=Esa Lehtinen; |
|Title=Hedging, knowledge and interaction: Doctors’ and clients’ talk about medical information and client experiences in genetic counseling | |Title=Hedging, knowledge and interaction: Doctors’ and clients’ talk about medical information and client experiences in genetic counseling | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Medical EMCA; Medical consultations; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Medical EMCA; Medical consultations; |
|Key=Lehtinen2013 | |Key=Lehtinen2013 | ||
|Year=2013 | |Year=2013 | ||
|Journal=Patient Education and Counseling | |Journal=Patient Education and Counseling | ||
|Volume=92 | |Volume=92 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Number=1 |
| + | |Pages=31–37 | ||
| + | |URL=http://www.pec-journal.com/article/S0738-3991(13)00076-1/abstract | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1016/j.pec.2013.02.005 | ||
| + | |Abstract=Objectives: The article starts from the observation that professionals in genetic counseling deploy the strategy of ‘hedging’. It shows how hedging is used in a particular sequential position: doctors’ responses to clients’ presentations of personal information during information delivery sequences. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Methods: The data consist of video-recorded sessions of genetic counseling. The methodology is based on ethnomethodological conversation analysis. The analysis identifies interactional patterns in the counseling sessions. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Results: In their responses doctors display an orientation to different access to different kinds of knowledge. In particular, the doctors tread carefully when commenting on the situation of a particular client vis-á-vis the symptoms and prognosis of genetic conditions. Furthermore, the article shows that the doctors’ responses and hedging devices in them are fitted to the form and function of the clients’ presentations of personal experience. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Conclusion: While the focus of the article is narrow in that it concentrates on one type of an interactional sequence, its strength is that it shows how the doctor's talk can be intertwined with the client's contributions. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Practice implications: The results make it possible for genetic counselors to identify an interactional task they recurrently face and reflect on alternative ways of responding to it. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 13:25, 1 March 2016
| Lehtinen2013 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Lehtinen2013 |
| Author(s) | Esa Lehtinen |
| Title | Hedging, knowledge and interaction: Doctors’ and clients’ talk about medical information and client experiences in genetic counseling |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Medical EMCA, Medical consultations |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2013 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Patient Education and Counseling |
| Volume | 92 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 31–37 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.pec.2013.02.005 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Objectives: The article starts from the observation that professionals in genetic counseling deploy the strategy of ‘hedging’. It shows how hedging is used in a particular sequential position: doctors’ responses to clients’ presentations of personal information during information delivery sequences.
Methods: The data consist of video-recorded sessions of genetic counseling. The methodology is based on ethnomethodological conversation analysis. The analysis identifies interactional patterns in the counseling sessions.
Results: In their responses doctors display an orientation to different access to different kinds of knowledge. In particular, the doctors tread carefully when commenting on the situation of a particular client vis-á-vis the symptoms and prognosis of genetic conditions. Furthermore, the article shows that the doctors’ responses and hedging devices in them are fitted to the form and function of the clients’ presentations of personal experience.
Conclusion: While the focus of the article is narrow in that it concentrates on one type of an interactional sequence, its strength is that it shows how the doctor's talk can be intertwined with the client's contributions.
Practice implications: The results make it possible for genetic counselors to identify an interactional task they recurrently face and reflect on alternative ways of responding to it.
Notes
