共同决策还是共同决策?亨廷顿氏病管理诊所的相互作用轨迹

Q4 Medicine Communication and Medicine Pub Date : 2018-01-05 DOI:10.1558/CAM.36402
D. Duffin, S. Sarangi
{"title":"共同决策还是共同决策?亨廷顿氏病管理诊所的相互作用轨迹","authors":"D. Duffin, S. Sarangi","doi":"10.1558/CAM.36402","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Shared decision making (SDM) as a corrective to paternalism - particularly in relation to treatment options - is a much-discussed theme in healthcare research and practice. The communicative/interactional dimensions of SDM have lately received scholarly attention, albeit limited to a few clinic sites. The Huntington's disease (HD) management clinic, which is the site of this study, involves the co-presence of family members in their carer role, since the patient with HD may lack the cognitive ability to participate adequately in the decision-making process. We closely examine 12 audio-recorded clinic consultation transcripts, using the combined framework of theme-orientated discourse analysis and activity analysis. Our analytical focus is on how decisions are formulated and shared, or not shared, by the co-participants (the consultant, the patient and the carers) and the extent to which the consultant and the carers negotiate their 'expert' assessments of the patient's current and future management scenarios. We first outline a step-wise structure of decision making - to include problem designation, problem confirmation, generation of options and their assessment, and formulation and confirmation of decision. Contrary to how SDM is represented in various models in the literature, these different steps are interactionally dispersed and become negotiable in particular clinic sessions. Our findingssuggest that the consultant routinely uses three main strategies to steer the decision-making process: foregrounding the decision itself, foregrounding the temporal dimension and foregrounding the person/ carer dimension. Moreover, carer participation differs depending on the carer's relationship with the patient and other contingent matters. -","PeriodicalId":39728,"journal":{"name":"Communication and Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Shared decision or decision shared? Interactional trajectories in Huntington’s disease management clinics\",\"authors\":\"D. Duffin, S. Sarangi\",\"doi\":\"10.1558/CAM.36402\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Shared decision making (SDM) as a corrective to paternalism - particularly in relation to treatment options - is a much-discussed theme in healthcare research and practice. The communicative/interactional dimensions of SDM have lately received scholarly attention, albeit limited to a few clinic sites. The Huntington's disease (HD) management clinic, which is the site of this study, involves the co-presence of family members in their carer role, since the patient with HD may lack the cognitive ability to participate adequately in the decision-making process. We closely examine 12 audio-recorded clinic consultation transcripts, using the combined framework of theme-orientated discourse analysis and activity analysis. Our analytical focus is on how decisions are formulated and shared, or not shared, by the co-participants (the consultant, the patient and the carers) and the extent to which the consultant and the carers negotiate their 'expert' assessments of the patient's current and future management scenarios. We first outline a step-wise structure of decision making - to include problem designation, problem confirmation, generation of options and their assessment, and formulation and confirmation of decision. Contrary to how SDM is represented in various models in the literature, these different steps are interactionally dispersed and become negotiable in particular clinic sessions. Our findingssuggest that the consultant routinely uses three main strategies to steer the decision-making process: foregrounding the decision itself, foregrounding the temporal dimension and foregrounding the person/ carer dimension. Moreover, carer participation differs depending on the carer's relationship with the patient and other contingent matters. -\",\"PeriodicalId\":39728,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Communication and Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Communication and Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1558/CAM.36402\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1558/CAM.36402","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

共同决策(SDM)作为对家长式作风的纠正——特别是与治疗方案有关——是医疗保健研究和实践中备受讨论的主题。SDM的交流/互动维度最近受到了学术界的关注,尽管仅限于少数诊所。亨廷顿舞蹈病(HD)管理诊所是本研究的地点,它涉及家庭成员共同参与照顾者的角色,因为亨廷顿舞蹈病患者可能缺乏充分参与决策过程的认知能力。本文采用主题导向话语分析和活动分析相结合的框架,对12份临床咨询录音进行了详细分析。我们的分析重点是共同参与者(咨询师、患者和护理人员)如何制定和分享决策,或者不分享决策,以及咨询师和护理人员在多大程度上就患者当前和未来的管理方案进行“专家”评估。我们首先概述了决策的阶梯式结构——包括问题指定、问题确认、选择的产生和评估、决策的制定和确认。与文献中各种模型中SDM的表现方式相反,这些不同的步骤是相互分散的,并且在特定的临床会议中可以协商。我们的研究结果表明,咨询师通常使用三种主要策略来引导决策过程:突出决策本身,突出时间维度和突出个人/照顾者维度。此外,护理人员的参与取决于护理人员与患者的关系和其他偶然事项。-
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
Shared decision or decision shared? Interactional trajectories in Huntington’s disease management clinics
Shared decision making (SDM) as a corrective to paternalism - particularly in relation to treatment options - is a much-discussed theme in healthcare research and practice. The communicative/interactional dimensions of SDM have lately received scholarly attention, albeit limited to a few clinic sites. The Huntington's disease (HD) management clinic, which is the site of this study, involves the co-presence of family members in their carer role, since the patient with HD may lack the cognitive ability to participate adequately in the decision-making process. We closely examine 12 audio-recorded clinic consultation transcripts, using the combined framework of theme-orientated discourse analysis and activity analysis. Our analytical focus is on how decisions are formulated and shared, or not shared, by the co-participants (the consultant, the patient and the carers) and the extent to which the consultant and the carers negotiate their 'expert' assessments of the patient's current and future management scenarios. We first outline a step-wise structure of decision making - to include problem designation, problem confirmation, generation of options and their assessment, and formulation and confirmation of decision. Contrary to how SDM is represented in various models in the literature, these different steps are interactionally dispersed and become negotiable in particular clinic sessions. Our findingssuggest that the consultant routinely uses three main strategies to steer the decision-making process: foregrounding the decision itself, foregrounding the temporal dimension and foregrounding the person/ carer dimension. Moreover, carer participation differs depending on the carer's relationship with the patient and other contingent matters. -
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
Communication and Medicine
Communication and Medicine Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊介绍: Communication & Medicine continues to abide by the following distinctive aims: • To consolidate different traditions of discourse and communication research in its commitment to an understanding of psychosocial, cultural and ethical aspects of healthcare in contemporary societies. • To cover the different specialities within medicine and allied healthcare studies. • To underscore the significance of specific areas and themes by bringing out special issues from time to time. • To be fully committed to publishing evidence-based, data-driven original studies with practical application and relevance as key guiding principles.
期刊最新文献
‘But this is a wizardry something that has to be removed first’ Implications of HIV status disclosure Team talk and the evaluation of medical guidance documentation Tensions between institutional and professional frames in team talk in gerontological social work Communication skills, expertise and ethics in healthcare education and practice
×
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