Pub Date : 2025-01-03DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108632
Kuan-chin Jean Chen , Lisa Graves , Eleftherios Soleas , Mathieu Jackson , Annie Descoteaux , Vanessa Balounaïck-Arowas , Nada Strathearn , Rob Van Hoorn , Nicholas Cofie , Nancy Dalgarno
Canada has been experiencing an opioid use crisis, and urgent efforts are being made to stem the tide. With funding support from Health Canada, the Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada (AFMC) recently developed a series of asynchronous online bilingual modules to educate key players across the medical education spectrum on chronic pain and opioid use. The curriculum for the modules which informed the development of the Patient-Physician Partnership Toolkit was co-created through an authentic collaboration between healthcare professionals (HCPs), and patient subject matter experts who were patients with lived experience. This discussion paper presents the methods and procedures employed in co-creating the patient toolkit with patient SMEs and presents the lessons learned for improving future partnerships.
{"title":"Developing a patient toolkit for opioid use and management through co-creation","authors":"Kuan-chin Jean Chen , Lisa Graves , Eleftherios Soleas , Mathieu Jackson , Annie Descoteaux , Vanessa Balounaïck-Arowas , Nada Strathearn , Rob Van Hoorn , Nicholas Cofie , Nancy Dalgarno","doi":"10.1016/j.pec.2024.108632","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.pec.2024.108632","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Canada has been experiencing an opioid use crisis, and urgent efforts are being made to stem the tide. With funding support from Health Canada, the Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada (AFMC) recently developed a series of asynchronous online bilingual modules to educate key players across the medical education spectrum on chronic pain and opioid use. The curriculum for the modules which informed the development of the Patient-Physician Partnership Toolkit was co-created through an authentic collaboration between healthcare professionals (HCPs), and patient subject matter experts who were patients with lived experience. This discussion paper presents the methods and procedures employed in co-creating the patient toolkit with patient SMEs and presents the lessons learned for improving future partnerships.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49714,"journal":{"name":"Patient Education and Counseling","volume":"133 ","pages":"Article 108632"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142967127","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-02DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108633
Brigitte N. Durieux , Samuel R. Zverev , Nicole D. Agaronnik , Joshua Davis , Kathryn I. Pollak , James A. Tulsky , Elise Tarbi , Charlotta Lindvall
Context
Effective communication between patients and oncologists is crucial, particularly around illness understanding. When this communication is asymmetric or imbalanced, it can hinder shared decision-making and lead to suboptimal clinical outcomes.
Objectives
We sought to describe physician-patient speech imbalances (“asymmetry”) in illness understanding portions of discussions between oncologists and advanced cancer patients and explore potential trends related to patient characteristics.
Methods
Our study included 285 audio recordings of outpatient encounters between 40 oncologists and 139 patients with advanced cancer. We identified illness understanding communication via manual data annotation and analyzed clinician-patient speech ratios. For this project, a communication outcome of “asymmetry” was defined as taking place when one party spoke more than 60 % of all spoken characters related to illness understanding in the conversation. We used descriptive statistics to report frequency of asymmetric conversations by patient characteristics. We then examined whether certain patient characteristics were associated with presence of at least one asymmetric illness understanding discussion as a categorical variable.
Results
At the conversation level, 77 % of all illness understanding discussions were asymmetric and clinician-dominated. At the patient level, 89 % experienced asymmetric illness understanding communication. We found that non-Hispanic white patients experienced a lower rate of asymmetry across their conversations compared to patients from other racial and ethnic backgrounds (73 % of conversations vs. 82 %).
Conclusions
Asymmetric, clinician-dominated communication was prevalent in illness understanding discussions.
Practice implications
Communication balances may be a relevant factor driving disparities in cancer care. Strategies are needed to address communication imbalances in serious illness conversations and enhance communication education.
{"title":"Physician-dominated conversations: An analysis of illness understanding discussions among patients with advanced cancer","authors":"Brigitte N. Durieux , Samuel R. Zverev , Nicole D. Agaronnik , Joshua Davis , Kathryn I. Pollak , James A. Tulsky , Elise Tarbi , Charlotta Lindvall","doi":"10.1016/j.pec.2024.108633","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.pec.2024.108633","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Context</h3><div>Effective communication between patients and oncologists is crucial, particularly around illness understanding. When this communication is asymmetric or imbalanced, it can hinder shared decision-making and lead to suboptimal clinical outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>We sought to describe physician-patient speech imbalances (“asymmetry”) in illness understanding portions of discussions between oncologists and advanced cancer patients and explore potential trends related to patient characteristics.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Our study included 285 audio recordings of outpatient encounters between 40 oncologists and 139 patients with advanced cancer. We identified illness understanding communication via manual data annotation and analyzed clinician-patient speech ratios. For this project, a communication outcome of “asymmetry” was defined as taking place when one party spoke more than 60 % of all spoken characters related to illness understanding in the conversation. We used descriptive statistics to report frequency of asymmetric conversations by patient characteristics. We then examined whether certain patient characteristics were associated with presence of at least one asymmetric illness understanding discussion as a categorical variable.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>At the conversation level, 77 % of all illness understanding discussions were asymmetric and clinician-dominated. At the patient level, 89 % experienced asymmetric illness understanding communication. We found that non-Hispanic white patients experienced a lower rate of asymmetry across their conversations compared to patients from other racial and ethnic backgrounds (73 % of conversations vs. 82 %).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Asymmetric, clinician-dominated communication was prevalent in illness understanding discussions.</div></div><div><h3>Practice implications</h3><div>Communication balances may be a relevant factor driving disparities in cancer care. Strategies are needed to address communication imbalances in serious illness conversations and enhance communication education.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49714,"journal":{"name":"Patient Education and Counseling","volume":"133 ","pages":"Article 108633"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2025-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142967163","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-12-25DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108627
Sarah Bigi , Nanon Labrie
{"title":"Editorial to the special section: Argumentation in healthcare","authors":"Sarah Bigi , Nanon Labrie","doi":"10.1016/j.pec.2024.108627","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.pec.2024.108627","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49714,"journal":{"name":"Patient Education and Counseling","volume":"133 ","pages":"Article 108627"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2024-12-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142911085","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-12-24DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108626
Sarah Bigi
Objective
Building on existing literature, which has pointed out the acceptability of certain persuasive strategies used by specialists in clinical communication, the article aims to describe the forms and functions of argumentative discourse in clinical dialogues.
Methods
The article relies on classical definitions of argumentative discourse that describe argumentation as the communication process characterized by a standpoint and at least an expression of doubt, often also by the presence of arguments in favor or against the standpoint.
Results
Through examples from real-life cases, it is shown that besides the typical function of persuasion, argumentation in clinical dialogues may have also the function of finding agreement for the alignment of assessments and for deliberation.
Discussion
This implies that when analyzing argumentative discourse, wider stretches of dialogue should be taken into consideration, not limiting observations to single turns or adjacency pairs.
Conclusion
The article highlights the importance of correctly understanding the role argumentation can play in the medical context and offers some suggestions for the analysis of argumentative discourse in clinical dialogues, in view of study design and professionals’ training.
Practice implications
The article offers insights for the development of training materials in view of improving HCPs’ abilities to put forward reasons for clinical decisions.
{"title":"Argumentative discourse in clinical dialogues: An interdisciplinary perspective","authors":"Sarah Bigi","doi":"10.1016/j.pec.2024.108626","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.pec.2024.108626","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>Building on existing literature, which has pointed out the acceptability of certain persuasive strategies used by specialists in clinical communication, the article aims to describe the forms and functions of argumentative discourse in clinical dialogues.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The article relies on classical definitions of argumentative discourse that describe argumentation as the communication process characterized by a standpoint and at least an expression of doubt, often also by the presence of arguments in favor or against the standpoint.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Through examples from real-life cases, it is shown that besides the typical function of persuasion, argumentation in clinical dialogues may have also the function of finding agreement for the alignment of assessments and for deliberation.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>This implies that when analyzing argumentative discourse, wider stretches of dialogue should be taken into consideration, not limiting observations to single turns or adjacency pairs.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The article highlights the importance of correctly understanding the role argumentation can play in the medical context and offers some suggestions for the analysis of argumentative discourse in clinical dialogues, in view of study design and professionals’ training.</div></div><div><h3>Practice implications</h3><div>The article offers insights for the development of training materials in view of improving HCPs’ abilities to put forward reasons for clinical decisions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49714,"journal":{"name":"Patient Education and Counseling","volume":"133 ","pages":"Article 108626"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2024-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142910977","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-12-23DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108622
Sara Rubinelli , Nicola Diviani
Objective
This study leverages argumentation theory to combat the growing threat of health disinformation by enhancing public competency in evaluating health-related information.
Methods
We systematically analyzed common persuasive tactics used in health disinformation, categorizing them into thematic groups linked to specific argument types. Based on these analyses, we developed critical questions to test the validity and strength of these arguments, resulting in an assessment tool.
Results
The assessment tool, formatted as a flowchart, guides users through targeted critical questions to assess the credibility of health information. It addresses tactics like data misuse, logical fallacies, and emotional manipulation, effectively improving users' ability to identify and resist misleading health claims.
Conclusion
Utilizing argumentation theory offers a structured framework to dissect and counteract persuasive disinformation techniques, thereby boosting public health literacy and empowering informed health decisions. The assessment tool serves as both an immediate practical tool and a long-term educational resource for building cognitive resilience.
Practice Implications
Our findings suggest that health institutions should regularly conduct workshops to strengthen public argumentation skills. Accessible online resources and the integration of argumentation theory into educational curricula are recommended to foster critical thinking and discernment of health information, promoting a more informed and engaged public.
{"title":"An argumentation theory-based assessment tool for evaluating disinformation in health-related claims","authors":"Sara Rubinelli , Nicola Diviani","doi":"10.1016/j.pec.2024.108622","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.pec.2024.108622","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This study leverages argumentation theory to combat the growing threat of health disinformation by enhancing public competency in evaluating health-related information.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We systematically analyzed common persuasive tactics used in health disinformation, categorizing them into thematic groups linked to specific argument types. Based on these analyses, we developed critical questions to test the validity and strength of these arguments, resulting in an assessment tool.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The assessment tool, formatted as a flowchart, guides users through targeted critical questions to assess the credibility of health information. It addresses tactics like data misuse, logical fallacies, and emotional manipulation, effectively improving users' ability to identify and resist misleading health claims.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Utilizing argumentation theory offers a structured framework to dissect and counteract persuasive disinformation techniques, thereby boosting public health literacy and empowering informed health decisions. The assessment tool serves as both an immediate practical tool and a long-term educational resource for building cognitive resilience.</div></div><div><h3>Practice Implications</h3><div>Our findings suggest that health institutions should regularly conduct workshops to strengthen public argumentation skills. Accessible online resources and the integration of argumentation theory into educational curricula are recommended to foster critical thinking and discernment of health information, promoting a more informed and engaged public.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49714,"journal":{"name":"Patient Education and Counseling","volume":"133 ","pages":"Article 108622"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142910976","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-12-22DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108619
Wenyu Li , Xueen Liu
Objective
This paper investigates the anxiety surrounding the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in doctor-patient interactions, analyzing the perspectives of both patients and healthcare providers to identify key concerns and potential solutions.
Methods
The study employs a comprehensive literature review, examining existing research on AI in healthcare, and synthesizes findings from various surveys and studies that explore the attitudes of patients and doctors towards AI applications in medical settings.
Results
The analysis reveals that patient anxiety encompasses algorithm aversion, robophobia, lack of humanistic care, challenges in human-machine interaction, and concerns about AI's universal applicability. Doctors' anxieties stem from fears of replacement, legal liabilities, emotional impacts of work environment changes, and technological apprehension. The paper highlights the need for patient participation, humanistic care, improved interaction methods, educational training, and policy guidelines to foster public understanding and trust in AI.
Conclusion
The paper concludes that addressing AI anxiety in doctor-patient relationships is crucial for successfully integrating AI in healthcare. It emphasizes the importance of respecting patient autonomy, addressing the lack of humanistic care, and improving patient-AI interaction to enhance the patient experience and reduce medical errors.
Practice implications
The study suggests that future research should focus on understanding the needs and concerns of patients and doctors, strengthening medical humanities education, and establishing policies to guide the ethical use of AI in medicine. It also recommends public education to enhance understanding and trust in AI to improve medical services and ensure professional development and stable work environment for doctors.
{"title":"Anxiety about artificial intelligence from patient and doctor-physician","authors":"Wenyu Li , Xueen Liu","doi":"10.1016/j.pec.2024.108619","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.pec.2024.108619","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This paper investigates the anxiety surrounding the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in doctor-patient interactions, analyzing the perspectives of both patients and healthcare providers to identify key concerns and potential solutions.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The study employs a comprehensive literature review, examining existing research on AI in healthcare, and synthesizes findings from various surveys and studies that explore the attitudes of patients and doctors towards AI applications in medical settings.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The analysis reveals that patient anxiety encompasses algorithm aversion, robophobia, lack of humanistic care, challenges in human-machine interaction, and concerns about AI's universal applicability. Doctors' anxieties stem from fears of replacement, legal liabilities, emotional impacts of work environment changes, and technological apprehension. The paper highlights the need for patient participation, humanistic care, improved interaction methods, educational training, and policy guidelines to foster public understanding and trust in AI.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The paper concludes that addressing AI anxiety in doctor-patient relationships is crucial for successfully integrating AI in healthcare. It emphasizes the importance of respecting patient autonomy, addressing the lack of humanistic care, and improving patient-AI interaction to enhance the patient experience and reduce medical errors.</div></div><div><h3>Practice implications</h3><div>The study suggests that future research should focus on understanding the needs and concerns of patients and doctors, strengthening medical humanities education, and establishing policies to guide the ethical use of AI in medicine. It also recommends public education to enhance understanding and trust in AI to improve medical services and ensure professional development and stable work environment for doctors.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49714,"journal":{"name":"Patient Education and Counseling","volume":"133 ","pages":"Article 108619"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2024-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142899668","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-12-22DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108623
Lotte van Poppel , Roosmaryn Pilgram
Objective
This study aims to examine the type of involvement of patient companions in the argumentative exchanges in consultations and explore when their contributions should be taken into account in shared decision-making (SDM).
Methods
A qualitative analysis was carried out using transcribed medical consultations (N = 10) between health professionals (doctors at a regional Dutch hospital), adult patients and informal patient companions. Insights from argumentation theory were used to develop an inventory of twelve theoretically distinct discussion situations involving patient companions, distinguishing possible discussion roles, disagreement types and coalition formations.
Results
Consultations contained on average 4.3 discussion situations. In most discussions (37.21 %) the health professional adopted a standpoint, and the patient and their companion only expressed doubt. More complex cases occurred when one of the three parties, including the companion, opposed opinions of the other parties (in 34.88 % of the situations found) and when coalitions were formed (possible in 18.60 % of the situations found). We found that disagreements occurred or were anticipated by all three parties and involved standpoints about the diagnosis as well as treatment options.
Conclusion
Using the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory as an analytical framework reveals that patient companions can substantially influence treatment decision-making during medical consultation. This influence is contingent upon the specific role they assume in the discussion, the type of disagreement with the health professional and patient, and the formation of coalitions with these parties.
Practice implications
The contributions by patient companions should be considered in SDM if the companion forms a coalition with the patient. If the companion does not form a coalition, the contributions might have a bearing on SDM as well, but their acceptability and relevance for the treatment decision should be checked by the health professional. In general, it is desirable to explicitly establish the role of patient companions in consultations.
{"title":"The argumentative role of patient companions in (shared) decision-making","authors":"Lotte van Poppel , Roosmaryn Pilgram","doi":"10.1016/j.pec.2024.108623","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.pec.2024.108623","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This study aims to examine the type of involvement of patient companions in the argumentative exchanges in consultations and explore when their contributions should be taken into account in shared decision-making (SDM).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A qualitative analysis was carried out using transcribed medical consultations (N = 10) between health professionals (doctors at a regional Dutch hospital), adult patients and informal patient companions. Insights from argumentation theory were used to develop an inventory of twelve theoretically distinct discussion situations involving patient companions, distinguishing possible discussion roles, disagreement types and coalition formations.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Consultations contained on average 4.3 discussion situations. In most discussions (37.21 %) the health professional adopted a standpoint, and the patient and their companion only expressed doubt. More complex cases occurred when one of the three parties, including the companion, opposed opinions of the other parties (in 34.88 % of the situations found) and when coalitions were formed (possible in 18.60 % of the situations found). We found that disagreements occurred or were anticipated by all three parties and involved standpoints about the diagnosis as well as treatment options.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Using the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory as an analytical framework reveals that patient companions can substantially influence treatment decision-making during medical consultation. This influence is contingent upon the specific role they assume in the discussion, the type of disagreement with the health professional and patient, and the formation of coalitions with these parties.</div></div><div><h3>Practice implications</h3><div>The contributions by patient companions should be considered in SDM if the companion forms a coalition with the patient. If the companion does not form a coalition, the contributions might have a bearing on SDM as well, but their acceptability and relevance for the treatment decision should be checked by the health professional. In general, it is desirable to explicitly establish the role of patient companions in consultations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49714,"journal":{"name":"Patient Education and Counseling","volume":"133 ","pages":"Article 108623"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2024-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142911089","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-12-21DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108624
Elisabeth Kleschatzky, Kati Hannken-Illjes
Objective
This paper studies argumentation and its function to establish common ground in pregnancy counseling conversations during the third trimester of the pregnancy, focusing on two material topoi: Non-comparability and Unplannability.
Methods
We take a conversation-analytical and interactional approach and draw on 37 natural occurring counseling conversations, videorecorded during two periods at a university hospital. The conversations are typically between the midwife and the pregnant woman. The data has been transcribed using the system GAT 2.
Results
The analysis shows on the one hand that argumentation functions as a process through which common ground can be established. The participants develop the topoi collaboratively, thereby also mitigating open dissensus. On the other hand the study shows the challenge during the conversations to prepare for an event while at the same time stressing that it remains non-comparable to past experiences and escapes planning.
Discussion
Our analysis shows that non-comparability and unplannability as material topoi are closely connected and established by way of co-construction.
Practice implications
We suggest that the tension of (un-)plannability is something midwives should be made aware of in order to be able to use it deliberately during the conversations by including authentic conversational data into communication training sessions.
{"title":"Non-comparability and unplannability as material topoi in antenatal care conversations","authors":"Elisabeth Kleschatzky, Kati Hannken-Illjes","doi":"10.1016/j.pec.2024.108624","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.pec.2024.108624","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This paper studies argumentation and its function to establish common ground in pregnancy counseling conversations during the third trimester of the pregnancy, focusing on two material topoi: Non-comparability and Unplannability.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We take a conversation-analytical and interactional approach and draw on 37 natural occurring counseling conversations, videorecorded during two periods at a university hospital. The conversations are typically between the midwife and the pregnant woman. The data has been transcribed using the system GAT 2.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The analysis shows on the one hand that argumentation functions as a process through which common ground can be established. The participants develop the topoi collaboratively, thereby also mitigating open dissensus. On the other hand the study shows the challenge during the conversations to prepare for an event while at the same time stressing that it remains non-comparable to past experiences and escapes planning.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>Our analysis shows that non-comparability and unplannability as material topoi are closely connected and established by way of co-construction.</div></div><div><h3>Practice implications</h3><div>We suggest that the tension of (un-)plannability is something midwives should be made aware of in order to be able to use it deliberately during the conversations by including authentic conversational data into communication training sessions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49714,"journal":{"name":"Patient Education and Counseling","volume":"133 ","pages":"Article 108624"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2024-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143061325","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-12-20DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108631
Muhammad Taufiqurrahman, Tamama Rofiqah, Tamama Hafizah
{"title":"Personalized patient education for subacromial pain syndrome: The role of and spiritual alignment","authors":"Muhammad Taufiqurrahman, Tamama Rofiqah, Tamama Hafizah","doi":"10.1016/j.pec.2024.108631","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.pec.2024.108631","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49714,"journal":{"name":"Patient Education and Counseling","volume":"133 ","pages":"Article 108631"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2024-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142899738","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines the communication preferences of transgender and genderdiverse individuals in the health system context. Findings suggest the importance of gender sensitivity and confident communication styles in improving patient experience. The article recommends case-based training to understand the dynamics of intersectionality and the development of communication aids to improve health literacy. This study highlights the need for longitudinal research to deepen understanding of changing communication preferences in this group.
{"title":"Enhancing gender sensitivity in transgender and gender-diverse patient communication","authors":"Elni Yakub, Isnaria Rizki Hayati, Rikas Saputra , Yenni Lidyawati","doi":"10.1016/j.pec.2024.108621","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.pec.2024.108621","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This article examines the communication preferences of transgender and genderdiverse individuals in the health system context. Findings suggest the importance of gender sensitivity and confident communication styles in improving patient experience. The article recommends case-based training to understand the dynamics of intersectionality and the development of communication aids to improve health literacy. This study highlights the need for longitudinal research to deepen understanding of changing communication preferences in this group.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49714,"journal":{"name":"Patient Education and Counseling","volume":"133 ","pages":"Article 108621"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142899686","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号