Doing referring in Murriny Patha conversation

Successful communication hinges on keeping track of who and what we are talking about. For this reason, person reference sits at the heart of the social sciences. Referring to persons is an interactional process where information is transferred from current speakers to the recipients of their talk. This dissertation concerns itself with the work that is achieved through this transfer of information. The interactional approach adopted is one that combines the “micro” of conversation analysis with the “macro” of genealogically grounded anthropological linguistics. Murriny Patha, a non-Pama-Nyungan language spoken in the north of Australia, is a highly complex polysynthetic language with kinship categories that are grammaticalized as verbal inflections. For referring to persons, as well as names, nicknames, kinterms, minimal descriptions and free pronouns, Murriny Patha speakers make extensive use of pronominal reference markers embedded within polysynthetic verbs. Murriny Patha does not have a formal “mother-in-law” register. There are however numerous taboos on naming kin in avoidance relationships, and on naming and their namesakes. Similarly, there are also taboos on naming the deceased and on naming their namesakes. As a result, for every speaker there is a multitude of people whose names should be avoided. At any one time, speakers of the language have a range of referential options. Speakers’ decisions about which category of reference forms to choose (names, kinterms etc.) are governed by conversational preferences that shape “referential design”. Six preferences – a preference for associating the referent to the co-present conversationalists, a preference for avoiding personal names, a preference for using recognitionals, a preference for being succinct, and a pair of opposed preferences relating to referential specificity – guide speakers towards choosing a name on one occasion, a kinterm on the next occasion and verbal cross-reference on yet another occasion. Different classes of expressions better satisfy particular conversational preferences. There is a systematicity to the referential choices that speakers make. The interactional objectives of interlocutors are enacted through the regular placement of particular forms in particular sequential environments. These objectives are then revealed through the turn-by-turn unfolding of conversational interaction

Multiple adhesin proteins on the cell surface of Streptococcus gordonii are involved in adhesion to human fibronectin

Adhesion of bacterial cells to fibronectin (FN) is thought to be a pivotal step in the pathogenesis of invasive infectious diseases. Viridans group streptococci such as Streptococcus gordonii are considered commensal members of the oral microflora, but are important pathogens in infective endocarditis. S. gordonii expresses a battery of cell-surface adhesins that act alone or in concert to bind host receptors. Here, we employed molecular genetic approaches to determine the relative contributions of five known S. gordonii surface proteins to adherence to human FN. Binding levels to FN by isogenic mutants lacking Hsa glycoprotein were reduced by 70 %, while mutants lacking CshA and CshB fibrillar proteins showed approximately 30 % reduced binding. By contrast, disruption of antigen I/II adhesin genes sspA and sspB in a wild-type background did not result in reduced FN binding. Enzymic removal of sialic acids from FN led to reduced S. gordonii DL1 adhesion (>50 %), but did not affect binding by the hsa mutant, indicating that Hsa interacts with sialic acid moieties on FN. Conversely, desialylation of FN did not affect adherence levels of Lactococcus lactis cells expressing SspA or SspB polypeptides. Complementation of the hsa mutant partially restored adhesion to FN. A model is proposed for FN binding by S. gordonii in which Hsa and CshA/CshB are primary adhesins, and SspA or SspB play secondary roles. Understanding the basis of oral streptococcal interactions with FN will provide a foundation for development of new strategies to control infective endocarditis

Sources of evidence in HIV/AIDS care: pilot study comparing family physicians and AIDS service organization staff

BACKGROUND: The improvement of the quality of the evidence used in treatment decision-making is especially important in the case of patients with complicated disease processes such as HIV/AIDS for which multiple treatment strategies exist with conflicting reports of efficacy. Little is known about the perceptions of distinct groups of health care workers regarding various sources of evidence and how these influence the clinical decision-making process. Our objective was to investigate how two groups of treatment information providers for people living with HIV/AIDS perceive the importance of various sources of treatment information. METHODS: Surveys were distributed to staff at two local AIDS service organizations and to family physicians at three community health centres treating people living with HIV/AIDS. Participants were asked to rate the importance of 10 different sources of evidence for HIV/AIDS treatment information on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Mean rating scores and relative rankings were compared. RESULTS: Findings suggest that a discordance exists between the two health information provider groups in terms of their perceptions of the various sources of evidence. Furthermore, AIDS service organization staff ranked health care professionals as the most important source of information whereas physicians deemed AIDS service organizations to be relatively unimportant. The two groups appear to share a common mistrust for information from pharmaceutical industries. CONCLUSIONS: Discordance exists between medical "experts" from different backgrounds relating to their perceptions of evidence. Further investigation is warranted in order to reveal any effects on the quality of treatment information and implications in the decision-making process. Possible effects on collaboration and working relationships also warrant further exploration

The challenges of communicating research evidence in practice: perspectives from UK health visitors and practice nurses

<p>Background: Health practitioners play a pivotal role in providing patients with up-to-date evidence and health information. Evidence-based practice and patient-centred care are transforming the delivery of healthcare in the UK. Health practitioners are increasingly balancing the need to provide evidence-based information against that of facilitating patient choice, which may not always concur with the evidence base. There is limited research exploring how health practitioners working in the UK, and particularly those more autonomous practitioners such as health visitors and practice nurses working in community practice settings, negotiate this challenge. This research provides a descriptive account of how health visitors and practice nurses negotiate the challenges of communicating health information and research evidence in practice.</p> <p>Methods: A total of eighteen in-depth telephone interviews were conducted in the UK between September 2008 and May 2009. The participants comprised nine health visitors and nine practice nurses, recruited via adverts on a nursing website, posters at a practitioner conference and through recommendation. Thematic analysis, with a focus on constant comparative method, was used to analyse the data.</p> <p>Results: The data were grouped into three main themes: communicating evidence to the critically-minded patient; confidence in communicating evidence; and maintaining the integrity of the patient-practitioner relationship. These findings highlight some of the daily challenges that health visitors and practice nurses face with regard to the complex and dynamic nature of evidence and the changing attitudes and expectations of patients. The findings also highlight the tensions that exist between differing philosophies of evidence-based practice and patient-centred care, which can make communicating about evidence a daunting task.</p> <p>Conclusions: If health practitioners are to be effective at communicating research evidence, we suggest that more research and resources need to be focused on contextual factors, such as how research evidence is negotiated, appraised and communicated within the dynamic patient-practitioner relationship.</p&gt

Furthering patient adherence: A position paper of the international expert forum on patient adherence based on an internet forum discussion

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>As the problem of patient non-adherence persists and a solution appears hard to be found, it continues to be important to look for new ways to further the issue. We recently conducted a meta-review of adherence intervention studies which yielded a preliminary agenda for future research, practice and theory development in patient adherence. The objective of the present project was to find out to what extent adherence experts consider this agenda relevant and feasible.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The thirty-five corresponding authors of the review studies included in the meta-review were invited to join the International Expert Forum on Patient Adherence and to participate in a four-week web-based focus group discussion. The discussion was triggered by the points on the preliminary agenda presented as propositions to which forum members could react. Two researchers analysed the transcripts and selected relevant phrases.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Twenty adherence experts participated. Various ideas and viewpoints were raised. After the closure of the web-site, the expert forum was asked to authorize the synthesis of the discussion, to list the propositions in order of priority and to answer a few questions on the use of the web-based focus group as a tool to obtain expert opinions. Their ranking showed that the development of simple interventions is the most promising step to take in fostering patient adherence, preferably within a multidisciplinary setting of medical, pharmaceutical, social and technical science and, not in the least, by incorporating patients' perspectives.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>For enhancing adherence, the development of simple interventions originating from a multidisciplinary perspective including patients' input, appears most promising. Disclosing patients' perspectives requires open communication about patients' expectations, needs and experiences in taking medication and about what might help them to become and remain adherent.</p

Communication in cancer genetic counselling: does it reflect counselees' previsit needs and preferences?

This study sought to describe counsellor–counselee interaction during initial cancer genetic counselling consultations and to examine whether the communication reflects counselees' previsit needs. A total of 130 consecutive counselees, referred mainly for breast or colon cancer, completed a questionnaire before their first appointment at a genetic clinic. Their visit was videotaped. Counselee and counsellor verbal communications were analysed and initiative to discuss 11 genetics-specific conversational topics was assessed. The content of the visit appeared relatively standard. Overall, counselees had a stronger psychosocial focus than counsellors. Counsellors directed the communication more and initiated the discussion of most of the topics assessed. Counselees did not appear to communicate readily in a manner that reflected their previsit needs. Counsellors provided more psychosocial information to counselees in higher need for emotional support, yet did not enquire more about counselees' specific concerns. New counselees may be helped by receiving more information on the counselling procedure prior to their visit, and may be advised to prepare the visit more thoroughly so as to help them verbalise more their queries during the visit

Open and hidden agendas of "asymptomatic" patients who request check-up exams

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for a check-up recommend routine screening not triggered by specific symptoms for some known risk factors and diseases in the general population. Patients' perceptions and expectations regarding a check-up exam may differ from these principles. However, quantitative and qualitative data about the discrepancy between patient- and provider expectations for this type of clinic consultation is lacking. METHODS: For a year, we prospectively enrolled 66 patients who explicitly requested a "check-up" at our medical outpatient division. All patients actively denied upon prompting having any symptoms or specific health concerns at the time they made their appointment. All consultations were videotaped and analysed for information about spontaneously mentioned symptoms and reasons for the clinic consultation ("open agendas") and for cues to hidden patient agendas using the Roter interaction analysis system (RIAS). RESULTS: All patients initially declared to be asymptomatic but this was ultimately the case in only 7 out of 66 patients. The remaining 59 patients spontaneously mentioned a mean of 4.2 ± 3.3 symptoms during their first consultation. In 23 patients a total of 31 hidden agendas were revealed. The primary categories for hidden agendas were health concerns, psychosocial concerns and the patient's concept of disease. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients requesting a general check-up tend to be motivated by specific symptoms and health concerns and are not "asymptomatic" patients who primarily come for preventive issues. Furthermore, physicians must be alert for possible hidden agendas, as one in three patients have one or more hidden reasons for requesting a check-up

Potential Transcriptional Biomarkers to Guide Glucocorticoid Replacement in Autoimmune Addison's Disease

Background No reliable biomarkers exist to guide glucocorticoid (GC) replacement treatment in autoimmune Addison’s disease (AAD), leading to overtreatment with alarming and persistent side effects or undertreatment, which could be fatal. Objective To explore changes in gene expression following different GC replacement doses as a means of identifying candidate transcriptional biomarkers to guide GC replacement in AAD. Methods Step 1: Global microarray expression analysis on RNA from whole blood before and after intravenous infusion of 100 mg hydrocortisone (HC) in 10 patients with AAD. In 3 of the most highly upregulated genes, we performed real-time PCR (rt-PCR) to compare gene expression levels before and 3, 4, and 6 hours after the HC infusion. Step 2: Rt-PCR to compare expression levels of 93 GC-regulated genes in normal versus very low morning cortisol levels in 27 patients with AAD. Results Step 1: Two hours after infusion of 100 mg HC, there was a marked increase in FKBP5, MMP9, and DSIPI expression levels. MMP9 and DSIPI expression levels correlated with serum cortisol. Step 2: Expression levels of CEBPB, DDIT4, FKBP5, DSIPI, and VDR were increased and levels of ADARB1, ARIDB5, and POU2F1 decreased in normal versus very low morning cortisol. Normal serum cortisol levels positively correlated with DSIPI, DDIT4, and FKBP5 expression. Conclusions We introduce gene expression as a novel approach to guide GC replacement in AAD. We suggest that gene expression of DSIPI, DDIT4, and FKBP5 are particularly promising candidate biomarkers of GC replacement, followed by MMP9, CEBPB, VDR, ADARB1, ARID5B, and POU2F1.publishedVersio

Does the attention General Practitioners pay to their patients' mental health problems add to their workload? A cross sectional national survey

BACKGROUND: The extra workload induced by patients with mental health problems may sometimes cause GPs to be reluctant to become involved in mental health care. It is known that dealing with patients' mental health problems is more time consuming in specific situations such as in consultations. But it is unclear if GPs who are more often involved in patients' mental health problems, have a higher workload than other GPs. Therefore we investigated the following: Is the attention GPs pay to their patients' mental health problems related to their subjective and objective workload? METHODS: Secondary analyses were made using data from the Second Dutch National Survey of General Practice, a cross sectional study conducted in the Netherlands in 2000–2002. A nationally representative selection of 195 GPs from 104 general practices participated in this National Survey. Data from: 1) a GP questionnaire; 2) a detailed log of the GP's time use during a week and; 3) an electronic medical registration system, including all patients' contacts during a year, were used. Multiple regression analyses were conducted with the GP's workload as an outcome measure, and the GP's attention for mental health problems as a predictor. GP, patient, and practice characteristics were included in analyses as potential confounders. RESULTS: Results show that GPs with a broader perception of their role towards mental health care do not have more working hours or patient contacts than GPs with a more limited perception of their role. Neither are they more exhausted or dissatisfied with the available time. Also the number of patient contacts in which a psychological or social diagnosis is made is not related to the GP's objective or subjective workload. CONCLUSION: The GP's attention for a patient's mental health problems is not related to their workload. The GP's extra workload when dealing in a consultation with patients' mental health problems, as is demonstrated in earlier research, is not automatically translated into a higher overall workload. This study does not confirm GPs' complaints that mental health care is one of the components of their job that consumes a lot of their time and energy. Several explanations for these results are discussed