Ambivalence related to potential lifestyle changes following preventive cardiovascular consultations in general practice: A qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Motivational interviewing approaches are currently recommended in primary prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in general practice in Denmark, based on an empirical and multidisciplinary body of scientific knowledge about the importance of motivation for successful lifestyle change among patients at risk of lifestyle related diseases. This study aimed to explore and describe motivational aspects related to potential lifestyle changes among patients at increased risk of CVD following preventive consultations in general practice.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Individual interviews with 12 patients at increased risk of CVD within 2 weeks after the consultation. Grounded theory was used in the analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Ambivalence related to potential lifestyle changes was the core motivational aspect in the interviews, even though the patients rarely verbalised this experience during the consultations. The patients experienced ambivalence in the form of conflicting feelings about lifestyle change. Analysis showed that these feelings interacted with their reflections in a concurrent process. Analysis generated a typology of five different ambivalence sub-types: perception, demand, information, priority and treatment ambivalence.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Ambivalence was a common experience in relation to motivation among patients at increased risk of CVD. Five different ambivalence sub-types were found, which clinicians may use to explore and resolve ambivalence in trying to aid patients to adopt lifestyle changes. Future research is needed to explore whether motivational interviewing and other cognitive approaches can be enhanced by exploring ambivalence in more depth, to ensure that lifestyle changes are made and sustained. Further studies with a wider range of patient characteristics are required to investigate the generalisability of the results.</p

The importance of contextualization. Anthropological reflections on descriptive analysis, its limitations and implications

This paper regards a concern for the quality of analyses made on the basis of qualitative interviews in some parts of qualitative health research. Departing in discussions on studies exploring ‘patient delay’ in healthcare seeking, it is argued that an implicit and simplified notion of causality impedes reflexivity on social context, on the nature of verbal statements and on the situatedness of the interview encounter. Further, the authors suggest that in order to improve the quality of descriptive analyses, it is pertinent to discuss the relationship between notions of causality and the need for contextualization in particular. This argument targets several disciplines taking a qualitative approach, including medical anthropology. Especially researchers working in interdisciplinary fields face demands of producing knowledge ready to implement, and such demands challenge basic notions of causality and explanatory power. In order to meet these, the authors suggest an analytic focus on process causality linked to contextualization