Rapley2006

From emcawiki
Revision as of 15:04, 6 June 2018 by DarceySearles (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Tim Rapley; Carl May; Ben Heaven; Madeline Murtagh; Ruth Graham; Eileen Kaner; Richard Thomson |Title=Doctor-patient interaction in a ra...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Rapley2006
BibType ARTICLE
Key Rapley2006
Author(s) Tim Rapley, Carl May, Ben Heaven, Madeline Murtagh, Ruth Graham, Eileen Kaner, Richard Thomson
Title Doctor-patient interaction in a randomised controlled trial of decision-support tools
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Medical EMCA, Ethnomethodology, Doctor-patient interaction, Primary care, Decision Support Tools
Publisher
Year 2006
Language English
City
Month
Journal Social Science and Medicine
Volume 62
Number
Pages 2267-2278
URL Link
DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.10.011
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

In this paper, we draw on the analytic perspectives of ethnomethodology to explore doctor–patient encounters in an experimental trial of a complex intervention: an efficacy randomised controlled trial (RCT) of decision-support tools in the UK. We show how the experimental context in which these encounters take place pervades the interactions within them. We argue that two interactional orders were at work in the encounters that we observed: (i) the ceremonial order of the consultation and (ii) the assemblage of the decision-support tool trial. We demonstrate how doctors in the trial oscillate between positions as authoritative clinician and neutralistic decision-support tool-implementer, and patients move between positions as passive recipients of clinical knowledge and as active subjects required to render their experience as calculable in terms of the demands of the decision-support tools and the broader trial they are embedded in. We demonstrate how the RCT coordinates the world of the clinical environment and the world of experimental evidence.

Notes