临床医生在初级保健就诊时纠正患者误解的沟通方法。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Health Communication Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-18 DOI:10.1080/10410236.2023.2283658
Jennifer Gerwing, Anne E C White, Stephen G Henry
{"title":"临床医生在初级保健就诊时纠正患者误解的沟通方法。","authors":"Jennifer Gerwing, Anne E C White, Stephen G Henry","doi":"10.1080/10410236.2023.2283658","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To investigate how clinicians correct patient misconceptions, we analyzed 23 video recordings of primary care visits. Analysis focused on operationalizing, identifying, and characterizing clinician corrections, integrating two inductive approaches: microanalysis of clinical interaction and conversation analysis. According to our definition, patient misconception-clinician correction episodes met three essential criteria: (1) the clinician refuted something the patient had said, (2) which the patient had presented without uncertainty, and (3) which contained a proposition that was factually incorrect. We identified 59 such episodes; the patient misconceptions most commonly related to medication issues; fewer than half had foreseeable implications for patients' future actions. We identified seven clinician correction practices: Three direct practices (displaying surprise, marking disagreement, contradicting the patient) and four indirect practices (presenting the correct proposition, providing explanations, invoking an outside authority, demonstrating with evidence). We found an almost equal distribution of these direct and indirect practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":12889,"journal":{"name":"Health Communication","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11182885/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Communicative Practices Clinicians Use to Correct Patient Misconceptions in Primary Care Visits.\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer Gerwing, Anne E C White, Stephen G Henry\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10410236.2023.2283658\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>To investigate how clinicians correct patient misconceptions, we analyzed 23 video recordings of primary care visits. Analysis focused on operationalizing, identifying, and characterizing clinician corrections, integrating two inductive approaches: microanalysis of clinical interaction and conversation analysis. According to our definition, patient misconception-clinician correction episodes met three essential criteria: (1) the clinician refuted something the patient had said, (2) which the patient had presented without uncertainty, and (3) which contained a proposition that was factually incorrect. We identified 59 such episodes; the patient misconceptions most commonly related to medication issues; fewer than half had foreseeable implications for patients' future actions. We identified seven clinician correction practices: Three direct practices (displaying surprise, marking disagreement, contradicting the patient) and four indirect practices (presenting the correct proposition, providing explanations, invoking an outside authority, demonstrating with evidence). We found an almost equal distribution of these direct and indirect practices.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12889,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Communication\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11182885/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2023.2283658\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/12/18 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Communication","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2023.2283658","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为了研究临床医生如何纠正患者的错误观念,我们分析了 23 份初级保健就诊录像。分析的重点是操作、识别和描述临床医生的纠正行为,并整合了两种归纳方法:临床互动微观分析和对话分析。根据我们的定义,患者的误解-临床医生的纠正符合三个基本标准:(1)临床医生反驳了患者所说的话,(2)患者在没有不确定性的情况下表达了自己的观点,(3)其中包含一个与事实不符的命题。我们发现了 59 次此类事件;患者的误解最常见的是与用药问题有关;只有不到一半的误解会对患者未来的行动产生可预见的影响。我们发现了七种临床医生纠正错误的做法:三种直接做法(表示惊讶、标明不同意见、反驳患者)和四种间接做法(提出正确主张、提供解释、援引外部权威、用证据证明)。我们发现这些直接和间接做法的分布几乎相等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Communicative Practices Clinicians Use to Correct Patient Misconceptions in Primary Care Visits.

To investigate how clinicians correct patient misconceptions, we analyzed 23 video recordings of primary care visits. Analysis focused on operationalizing, identifying, and characterizing clinician corrections, integrating two inductive approaches: microanalysis of clinical interaction and conversation analysis. According to our definition, patient misconception-clinician correction episodes met three essential criteria: (1) the clinician refuted something the patient had said, (2) which the patient had presented without uncertainty, and (3) which contained a proposition that was factually incorrect. We identified 59 such episodes; the patient misconceptions most commonly related to medication issues; fewer than half had foreseeable implications for patients' future actions. We identified seven clinician correction practices: Three direct practices (displaying surprise, marking disagreement, contradicting the patient) and four indirect practices (presenting the correct proposition, providing explanations, invoking an outside authority, demonstrating with evidence). We found an almost equal distribution of these direct and indirect practices.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
10.30%
发文量
184
期刊介绍: As an outlet for scholarly intercourse between medical and social sciences, this noteworthy journal seeks to improve practical communication between caregivers and patients and between institutions and the public. Outstanding editorial board members and contributors from both medical and social science arenas collaborate to meet the challenges inherent in this goal. Although most inclusions are data-based, the journal also publishes pedagogical, methodological, theoretical, and applied articles using both quantitative or qualitative methods.
期刊最新文献
Promoting Resilience and Well-Being of Young Adults with Diabetes Through Digital Storytelling in Arts-Based Research. Has it Really Been 37 Years? The Journey of Health Communication. Narrative Force: How Science and Storytelling Impact Parental Concussion Beliefs and Intentions Through Transportation and Trust. Following Medical Advice of an AI or a Human Doctor? Experimental Evidence Based on Clinician-Patient Communication Pathway Model. COVID-19 Vaccination Hesitancies: A Spanish-Language Focus Group Analysis in Texas.
×
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