Analyzing dialogue moves in chronic care communication

IF 0.6 Q3 COMMUNICATION Journal of Argumentation in Context Pub Date : 2020-10-28 DOI:10.1075/jaic.18044.mac
Fabrizio Macagno, Sarah Bigi
{"title":"Analyzing dialogue moves in chronic care communication","authors":"Fabrizio Macagno, Sarah Bigi","doi":"10.1075/jaic.18044.mac","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Dialogue moves are a pragmatic instrument that captures the most important categories of “dialogical intentions.” This paper adapts this tool to the conversational setting of chronic care communication, characterized by the general goal of making reasoned decisions concerning patients’ conditions, shared by the latter. Seven mutually exclusive and comprehensive categories were identified, whose reliability was tested on an Italian corpus of provider-patient encounters in diabetes care. The application of this method was illustrated through explorative analyses identifying possible correlations between the dialogical structure of medical interviews and one of the indicators of personalized decision-making, namely the specificity of the recommendations given by the provider (“customization”). The statistical analyses show a significant correlation between the exchange of personal information and very specific and customized recommendations for change. It suggests how the creation of common ground, exceeding the boundaries of the paternalistic or patient-centered models, can lead to highly effective communication.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":"9 1","pages":"167-198"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18044.mac","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Abstract Dialogue moves are a pragmatic instrument that captures the most important categories of “dialogical intentions.” This paper adapts this tool to the conversational setting of chronic care communication, characterized by the general goal of making reasoned decisions concerning patients’ conditions, shared by the latter. Seven mutually exclusive and comprehensive categories were identified, whose reliability was tested on an Italian corpus of provider-patient encounters in diabetes care. The application of this method was illustrated through explorative analyses identifying possible correlations between the dialogical structure of medical interviews and one of the indicators of personalized decision-making, namely the specificity of the recommendations given by the provider (“customization”). The statistical analyses show a significant correlation between the exchange of personal information and very specific and customized recommendations for change. It suggests how the creation of common ground, exceeding the boundaries of the paternalistic or patient-centered models, can lead to highly effective communication.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
慢性病护理沟通中的对话动作分析
摘要对话动作是一种语用工具,它捕捉到了“对话意图”的最重要类别。本文将该工具应用于慢性病护理沟通的对话环境,其特点是就患者的病情做出合理决定,这是后者的共同目标。确定了七个相互排斥且全面的类别,其可靠性在意大利糖尿病护理提供者-患者遭遇语料库中进行了测试。通过探索性分析,确定了医学访谈的对话结构与个性化决策的指标之一,即提供者提供的建议的特异性(“定制”)之间的可能相关性,说明了这种方法的应用。统计分析显示,个人信息交流与非常具体和定制的变革建议之间存在显著相关性。它表明,创造共同点,超越家长式或以患者为中心的模式的界限,可以带来高效的沟通。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: The Journal of Argumentation in Context aims to publish high-quality papers about the role of argumentation in the various kinds of argumentative practices that have come into being in social life. These practices include, for instance, political, legal, medical, financial, commercial, academic, educational, problem-solving, and interpersonal communication. In all cases certain aspects of such practices will be analyzed from the perspective of argumentation theory with a view of gaining a better understanding of certain vital characteristics of these practices. This means that the journal has an empirical orientation and concentrates on real-life argumentation but is at the same time out to publish only papers that are informed by relevant insights from argumentation theory.
期刊最新文献
Tweeting fallacies The epistemological orientation of Ottoman argumentation theory and its relation to kalām Review of Wu (2023): Responding to questions at press conferences: Confrontational maneuvering by Chinese spokespersons Review of Serafis (2023): Authoritarianism on the front page: Multimodal discourse and argumentation in times of multiple crises in Greece Covid-19 and public debate over gain-of-function research on potentially pandemic pathogens
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1